Rover 200 1992 vs BMW 3 series 1993
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Manual | Manual/Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Rover 200 is available only with manual gearbox, whereas BMW 3 series has both automatic and manual transmission options. | |||
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Rover 200 is available with front wheel drive, while BMW 3 series can be equipped with rear wheel drive. | |||
Engines: | 1.4 - 1.6 | 1.8 - 2.8 | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 103 - 122 HP | 115 - 193 HP | |
Torque: | 127 - 138 NM | 168 - 280 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 - 10.1 seconds | 7.7 - 14 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 - 8.5 | 8.1 - 11.0 | |
Rover 200 petrol engines consumes on average 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than BMW 3 series. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.22 m | 4.43 m | |
Width: | 1.68 m | 1.71 m | |
Height: | 1.39 m | 1.35 m | |
Rover 200 is smaller, but slightly higher. Rover 200 is 21 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 4 cm higher. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 230 litres | |
Rover 200 has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Rover 200 has 70 litres more trunk space than the BMW 3 series. The BMW 3 series may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10 meters | |
The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`565 | ~ 1`820 | |
Safety: | no data | ||
Quality: | no data | low | |
Average price (€): | no data | 7800 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |