Ford Mondeo 2000 vs Rover 75 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 220 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.7 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
| Ford Mondeo engine produces 7 HP less power than Rover 75, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Rover 75. Despite less power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 | 10.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 11.1 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75, which means that by driving the Ford Mondeo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 860 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 580 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 350'000 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 Ford Mondeo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Kia Carnival, Rover 400 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Rover 75 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Ford Mondeo 2000 2.5 engine: The LCBD engine features a multi-point fuel injection system, where each cylinder is equipped with its own injector for precise fuel delivery. This system is highly durable and reliable, with a low likelihood of ... More about Ford Mondeo 2000 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.44 m | 1.42 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Mondeo is 1 cm longer than the Rover 75, 3 cm wider, while the height of Ford Mondeo is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 540 litres | 400 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1700 litres | 1222 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Ford Mondeo has 140 litres more trunk space than the Rover 75. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 478 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.1 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Ford Mondeo is 0.3 metres less than that of the Rover 75. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`105 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Rover 75 has
| |