Rover 25 2000 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 145 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 174 NM | 146 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.3 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Rover 25 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 25 engine produces 45 HP more power than Mazda 2, whereas torque is 28 NM more than Mazda 2. Thanks to more power Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.5 | 7.1 | |
|
The Mazda 2 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 25 consumes 0.4 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 60 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 45 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 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: | 10 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 200 | 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. Mazda 2 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: | no data | 267 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1044 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`515 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |