Rover 200 1996 vs Mazda 3 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 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: | 112 HP | 104 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 144 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 8 HP more power than Mazda 3, whereas torque is 1 NM more than Mazda 3. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 6.5 | |
|
The Mazda 3 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 200 consumes 1.3 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 195 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 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: | 390'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Rover 200 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 25, Rover 400, Rover 45 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | 4.47 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`500 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 7200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Mazda 3 has
| |