Rover 25 2002 vs Mazda 2 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.1 Petrol | 1.2 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 75 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 95 NM | 110 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.5 seconds | 15.1 seconds | |
| Rover 25 and Mazda 2 have the same engine power, but Rover 25 torque is 15 NM less than Mazda 2. Rover 25 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.7 | 6.3 | |
|
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: | 740 km in combined cycle | 710 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 300'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. 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: | 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: | no data | 9.8 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 1`490 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | high | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 25 has
|
Mazda 2 has
| |