Rover 200 1996 vs Peugeot 306 1999
| 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 | 13.5 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 22 HP more power than Peugeot 306, whereas torque is 10 NM more than Peugeot 306. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 7.3 l/100km | |
|
The Peugeot 306 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 200 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 306, which means that by driving the Rover 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Rover 200 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Peugeot 306. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 820 km with real consumption | ||
| Peugeot 306 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 390'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 25, Rover 400, Rover 45 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Peugeot 206, Citroen Xsara Picasso, Peugeot 106 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Peugeot 306 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Rover 200 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
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 | no data | |
|
Peugeot 306 has more luggage space. Rover 200 has 36 litres less trunk space than the Peugeot 306. | |||
| 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`510 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Peugeot 306 has
| |