Rover 25 1999 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 80 HP | |
| Torque: | 123 NM | 124 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 13.9 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 engine produces 23 HP more power than Mazda 2, but torque is 1 NM less than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.6 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.5 l/100km | 7.4 l/100km | |
|
By specification Rover 25 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 25 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 25 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Rover 25 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 14 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 200, Rover 400, Rover 45 | Used also on Ford Fiesta, Ford Fusion | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Rover 25 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Rover 25 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.99 m | 3.92 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.54 m | |
|
Rover 25 is larger, but lower. Rover 25 is 7 cm longer than the Mazda 2, 1 cm wider, while the height of Rover 25 is 12 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 1044 litres | |
|
Rover 25 has more luggage capacity. Rover 25 has 37 litres more trunk space than the Mazda 2. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Rover 25 (by 42 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 9.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 25 is 0.2 metres more than that of the Mazda 2. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`495 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |