Rover 25 1999 vs Citroen C3 2002
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.1 - 2.0 | 1.1 - 1.6 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 - 145 HP | 61 - 110 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 - 240 NM | 94 - 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 - 13.5 seconds | 10.7 - 17.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 - 8.2 | 4.2 - 7.1 | |
|
Rover 25 petrol engines consumes on average 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than Citroen C3. On average, Rover 25 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Citroen C3. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.99 m | 3.85 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.67 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.52 m | |
|
Rover 25 is larger, but lower. Rover 25 is 14 cm longer than the Citroen C3, 2 cm wider, while the height of Rover 25 is 10 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 305 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 1150 litres | |
| Rover 25 has 1 litres less trunk space than the Citroen C3. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Citroen C3 (by 64 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 25 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Citroen C3, which means Rover 25 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`512 | ~ 1`502 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Citroen C3 has
| |