Rover 25 1999 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 146 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Rover 25 torque is 94 NM more than Mazda 2. Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 7.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 7.7 l/100km | |
|
The Rover 25 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 25 consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2, which means that by driving the Rover 25 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 25 consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 2. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Rover 25 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 470'000 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 | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Accord, Land Rover Freelander, Rover 45 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Ford C-Max, 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`600 | 1`515 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |