Rover 200 1996 vs Suzuki Baleno 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 145 NM | 134 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.4 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 200 engine produces 16 HP more power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 11 NM more than Suzuki Baleno. Thanks to more power Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.3 | |
| Rover 200 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 200 could require 75 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.40 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Rover 200 is 7 cm longer than the Suzuki Baleno, width is practically the same , while the height of Rover 200 is 2 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 | 9.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 1 metres more than that of the Suzuki Baleno, which means Rover 200 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`100 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Suzuki Baleno has
| |