Rover 400 1991 vs Ford Sierra 1990
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.9 Diesel | 1.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 67 HP | 75 HP | |
| Torque: | 121 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
| Rover 400 engine produces 8 HP less power than Ford Sierra, whereas torque is 31 NM less than Ford Sierra. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 6.4 | |
|
The Rover 400 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Rover 400 consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Sierra, which means that by driving the Rover 400 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 980 km in combined cycle | 930 km in combined cycle | |
| Rover 400 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
| Front-wheel drive cars (Rover 400) have better traction on slippery roads and when climbing hills, better fuel economy, and are less expensive to purchase. On the disadvantage side, FWD cars usually have less towing capacity, poorer acceleration and harder handling. Rear-wheel drive cars (Ford Sierra) have better handling on dry roads, better acceleration, more even weight distribution and more fun to drive. RWD is also better for towing large loads. The cons of rear-wheel drive are less interior and trunk space and more difficulty maneuvering in wet and snowy conditions. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 700'000 km | 300'000 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 Rover 400 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 23 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Citroen Xsara, Citroen Berlingo, Citroen Xantia | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Rover 400 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.47 m | |
| Width: | 1.68 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.40 m | 1.41 m | |
|
Rover 400 is smaller. Rover 400 is 10 cm shorter than the Ford Sierra, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 400 is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 10 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 1`150 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 400 has
|
Ford Sierra has
| |