Rover 400 1996 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: | 2.0 Diesel | 1.9 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 86 HP | 90 HP | |
| Torque: | 170 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Skoda Octavia is a more dynamic driving. Rover 400 engine produces 4 HP less power than Skoda Octavia, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Skoda Octavia. Due to the lower power, Rover 400 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.7 | 5.0 | |
|
The Skoda Octavia is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 400 consumes 0.7 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 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 960 km in combined cycle | 1100 km in combined cycle | |
| 1240 km on highway | 1300 km on highway | ||
| Skoda Octavia gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 370'000 km | 610'000 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 Skoda Octavia engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 13 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 200 | Installed on at least 8 other car models, including Volkswagen Golf, Audi A3, Volkswagen Bora, Seat Leon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Skoda Octavia might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
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 | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
810 litres | no data | |
| 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`690 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Skoda Octavia has
| |