Rover 25 1999 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.4 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 68 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 160 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 15 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 engine produces 32 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 80 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 4.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 4.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 25 consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 25 consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 1000 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 840 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mazda 2 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Accord, Land Rover Freelander, Rover 45 | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
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`600 | 1`530 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |