Rover 400 1998 vs Skoda Octavia 2000
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.4 Petrol | 1.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 103 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 127 NM | 126 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.8 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
|
Rover 400 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 400 engine produces 28 HP more power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 1 NM more than Skoda Octavia. Thanks to more power Rover 400 reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 6.8 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 6.9 l/100km | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Rover 400 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 400 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 400 consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Skoda Octavia. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 820 km in combined cycle | |
| 1050 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 790 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
| Skoda Octavia 2000 1.4 engine: Engine is known for its simplicity, compact design, and overall reliability. Many complaints from owners are related to power loss or fluctuating idle, often caused by issues with the throttle body, EGR valve, or air leaks ... More about Skoda Octavia 2000 1.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.49 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Rover 400 is smaller. Rover 400 is 2 cm shorter than the Skoda Octavia, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 470 litres | 528 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
810 litres | 1328 litres | |
|
Skoda Octavia has more luggage space. Rover 400 has 58 litres less trunk space than the Skoda Octavia. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Skoda Octavia (by 518 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.3 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 400 is 0.5 metres less than that of the Skoda Octavia, which means Rover 400 can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`550 kg | 1`750 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`120 kg | 1`250 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 430 kg | 500 kg | |
| Rover 400 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 16 procentiem less than Skoda Octavia. Therefore, Skoda Octavia is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 400 has
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |