Rover 200 1998 vs Suzuki Baleno 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Rover 200) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Suzuki Baleno) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 105 HP | 96 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 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 9 HP more power than Suzuki Baleno, whereas torque is 76 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): | 5.6 | 7.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.5 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 200 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 200 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno, which means that by driving the Rover 200 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 200 consumes 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Suzuki Baleno. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 51 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 890 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 1110 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Rover 200 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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`620 | 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
| |