Rover 400 1996 vs Mitsubishi Galant 1996

Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison

 
Rover 400
1996 - 2000
Mitsubishi Galant
1996 - 2004
Gearbox: Manual/AutomaticManual/Automatic
Wheel drive type: Front wheel drive (FWD)Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4)
Rover 400 is available only with front wheel drive, while Mitsubishi Galant can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive.
Engines: 1.4 - 2.51.8 - 3.0

Performance

Power: 86 - 175 HP90 - 280 HP
Torque: 127 - 240 NM178 - 363 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 8.5 - 14 seconds8.2 - 12.8 seconds
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison!

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 5.3 - 10.27.0 - 11.8
Rover 400 petrol engines consumes on average 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mitsubishi Galant. On average, Rover 400 equipped with diesel engines consume 1.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Galant.
This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version!

Dimensions

Length: 4.49 m4.65 m
Width: 1.70 m1.74 m
Height: 1.39 m1.42 m
Rover 400 is smaller.
Rover 400 is 16 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Galant, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 3 cm lower.
Trunk capacity: 470 litres470 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down
810 litres1400 litres
Turning diameter: 10.3 meters10.8 meters
The turning circle of the Rover 400 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Galant, which means Rover 400 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces.
Gross weight (kg): ~ 1`684~ 1`851
Safety: no datano data
Quality: no data
average
Average price (€): no data2000
Pros and Cons: Rover 400 has
  • lower fuel consumption
Mitsubishi Galant has
  • available with 4x4 drive
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv