Rover 200 1996 vs Mazda 323 1989
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.3 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 73 HP | |
| Torque: | 127 NM | 105 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 30 HP more power than Mazda 323, whereas torque is 22 NM more than Mazda 323. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.1 | 6.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 323 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 200 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 200 could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 200 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.00 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.38 m | |
| Rover 200 is 3 cm shorter than the Mazda 323, 2 cm wider, while the height of Rover 200 is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 309 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | no data | |
| Rover 200 has 5 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 323. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`480 | 1`440 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
| |