Rover 200 1996 vs Mazda 323 1989
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 135 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 seconds | 10.3 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 22 HP more power than Mazda 323, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Mazda 323. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 7.8 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 less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323, which means that by driving the Rover 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Rover 200 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 323. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 600 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 323 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: | 390'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 25, Rover 400, Rover 45 | Used also on Mazda MX-3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Rover 200 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.34 m | |
| Rover 200 is 29 cm shorter than the Mazda 323, 1 cm wider, while the height of Rover 200 is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mazda 323, which means Rover 200 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`510 | 1`550 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Mazda 323 has
| |