Rover 400 1996 vs Volvo S40 1995
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.4 - 2.5 | 1.6 - 1.9 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 - 175 HP | 90 - 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 127 - 240 NM | 143 - 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.5 - 14 seconds | 7.3 - 13 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.3 - 10.2 | 5.6 - 9.7 | |
|
Rover 400 petrol engines consumes on average 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than Volvo S40. On average, Rover 400 equipped with diesel engines consume 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo S40. 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 m | 4.48 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.72 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.41 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Rover 400 is 1 cm longer than the Volvo S40, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 470 litres | 471 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
810 litres | 853 litres | |
| Rover 400 has 1 litres less trunk space than the Volvo S40. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo S40 (by 43 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 400 is 0.7 metres less than that of the Volvo S40, which means Rover 400 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 1`684 | ~ 1`756 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 400 has
|
| |