Rover 200 1995 vs Peugeot 306 1999
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.0 | 1.4 - 2.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 - 145 HP | 70 - 135 HP | |
| Torque: | 117 - 210 NM | 111 - 205 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 - 13.3 seconds | 10.3 - 17.2 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 - 7.8 | 5.2 - 9.1 | |
|
Rover 200 petrol engines consumes on average 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than Peugeot 306. On average, Rover 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 306. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.03 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.36 m | |
| Rover 200 is 6 cm shorter than the Peugeot 306, 1 cm wider, while the height of Rover 200 is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 340 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 1146 litres | |
|
Peugeot 306 has more luggage space. Rover 200 has 36 litres less trunk space than the Peugeot 306. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Peugeot 306 (by 60 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Peugeot 306, which means Rover 200 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`527 | ~ 1`519 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Peugeot 306 has
| |