Rover 25 1999 vs Volkswagen Polo 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 64 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 125 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 17 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 engine produces 36 HP more power than Volkswagen Polo, whereas torque is 115 NM more than Volkswagen Polo. Thanks to more power Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 6.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 4.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 6.0 l/100km | 5.0 l/100km | |
|
The Volkswagen Polo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 25 consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 25 could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 25 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volkswagen Polo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 950 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1150 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 700'000 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 Volkswagen Polo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 11 years | 14 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Accord, Land Rover Freelander, Rover 45 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi 80, Seat Toledo, Skoda Felicia | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volkswagen Polo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.99 m | 3.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.69 m | 1.65 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Rover 25 is larger, but slightly lower. Rover 25 is 9 cm longer than the Volkswagen Polo, 4 cm wider, while the height of Rover 25 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 304 litres | 270 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1086 litres | 1030 litres | |
|
Rover 25 has more luggage capacity. Rover 25 has 34 litres more trunk space than the Volkswagen Polo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Rover 25 (by 56 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 25 is 0.6 metres less than that of the Volkswagen Polo, which means Rover 25 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`600 | 1`630 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Volkswagen Polo has
| |