Ford Mondeo 2000 vs Rover 75 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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: | 145 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 190 NM | 185 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.8 seconds | 10.2 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is more dynamic to drive. Ford Mondeo engine produces 5 HP less power than Rover 75, but torque is 5 NM more than Rover 75. Despite less power, Ford Mondeo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.5 l/100km | 9.9 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Ford Mondeo consumes 1.4 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 210 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Ford Mondeo consumes 1.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 75. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 730 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 980 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 650 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 330'000 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 | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Rover 45 | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Rover 75 engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Ford Mondeo is 2 cm shorter than the Rover 75, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 500 litres | 432 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 432 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Ford Mondeo has 68 litres more trunk space than the Rover 75. The Rover 75 may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. | |||
| 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): | 1`865 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 1200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Ford Mondeo has
|
Rover 75 has
| |