Rover 200 1993 vs BMW 3 series 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 138 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Rover 200 engine produces 21 HP less power than BMW 3 series, whereas torque is 62 NM less than BMW 3 series. Despite less power, Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The BMW 3 series is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 200 consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 200 could require 120 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 200 consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 63 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW 3 series gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Rover 200) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (BMW 3 series) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.37 m | |
|
Rover 200 is smaller, but slightly higher. Rover 200 is 27 cm shorter than the BMW 3 series, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | 300 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 300 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 10 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.2 metres more than that of the BMW 3 series. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`580 | 1`885 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
BMW 3 sērija has
| |