Rover 75 2004 vs Ford Mondeo 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 220 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 10.8 seconds | |
|
Rover 75 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 75 engine produces 7 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Thanks to more power Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 10.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
By specification Rover 75 consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that by driving the Rover 75 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 15 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 550 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 740 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Rover 75 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 440'000 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: | 10 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Freelander, Kia Carnival, Rover 400 | 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 75 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Ford Mondeo 2003 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 2003 2.5 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.39 m | 1.44 m | |
|
Rover 75 is smaller. Rover 75 is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 75 is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 400 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1222 litres | 1700 litres | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage space. Rover 75 has 140 litres less trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Ford Mondeo (by 478 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 75 is 0.3 metres more than that of the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`050 | 2`105 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |