Rover 200 1993 vs Toyota Celica 1991
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 138 NM | 186 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.9 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Rover 200 engine produces 34 HP less power than Toyota Celica, whereas torque is 48 NM less than Toyota Celica. Despite less power, Rover 200 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.5 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.6 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 200 is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 200 consumes 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 200 could require 75 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Rover 200 consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Celica. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.32 m | |
|
Rover 200 is smaller, but higher. Rover 200 is 27 cm shorter than the Toyota Celica, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 200 is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 300 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.2 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 200 is 0.8 metres less than that of the Toyota Celica, which means Rover 200 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`580 | 1`200 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 200 has
|
Toyota Celica has
| |