Rover 75 2002 vs Ford Mondeo 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 1.8 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: | 150 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 215 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Rover 75 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 75 engine produces 25 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, whereas torque is 45 NM more than Ford Mondeo. Thanks to more power Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.0 | 7.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.4 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 75 consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 75 could require 15 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1000 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 710 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 300'000 km | 500'000 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: | 3 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Ford Focus | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Ford Mondeo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| 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. | |||
| Ford Mondeo 2000 1.8 engine: The Ford CHBA/CHBB, also known as the 1.8 Duratec HE, is a naturally aspirated four-cylinder gasoline engine introduced in 2000 and developed with Mazda’s involvement. It uses an aluminum cylinder block and aluminum 16-valve cylinder head with two camshafts, multipoint fuel injection, and a timing chain drive. With ... More about Ford Mondeo 2000 1.8 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.44 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Rover 75 is 1 cm shorter than the Ford Mondeo, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Rover 75 is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 400 litres | 540 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
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: | 1`980 kg | 2`030 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`475 kg | 1`431 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 505 kg | 599 kg | |
| Rover 75 load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 19 procentiem less than Ford Mondeo. Therefore, Ford Mondeo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |