Rover 200 1996 vs Mazda 323 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.9 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda 323 is a more dynamic driving. Rover 200 engine produces 30 HP less power than Mazda 323, but torque is 10 NM more than Mazda 323. Due to the lower power, Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 8.0 | |
|
The Rover 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 200 consumes 2.4 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 360 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| Rover 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.97 m | 4.03 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.40 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Rover 200 is 6 cm shorter than the Mazda 323, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | no data | |
| Rover 200 has 4 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 323. | |||
| 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`600 | 1`625 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Mazda 323 has
| |