Rover 200 1998 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 117 NM | 150 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.3 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Mazda 3 is a more dynamic driving. Rover 200 engine produces 25 HP less power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 33 NM less than Mazda 3. Due to the lower power, Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 6.4 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 200 consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 200 could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 200 consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 3. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1180 km on highway | ||
| 620 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 3 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Rover 400, Rover 100 | Used also on Mazda 2 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.45 m | |
|
Rover 200 is smaller. Rover 200 is 50 cm shorter than the Mazda 3, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 364 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 1263 litres | |
|
Mazda 3 has more luggage space. Rover 200 has 60 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mazda 3 (by 177 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.2 metres less than that of the Mazda 3. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`460 | 1`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |