Rover 75 1999 vs Ford Mondeo 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 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 | 145 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 190 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.8 seconds | |
|
Ford Mondeo is a more dynamic driving. Rover 75 engine produces 5 HP more power than Ford Mondeo, but torque is 5 NM less than Ford Mondeo. Despite the higher power, Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 8.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Ford Mondeo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 75 consumes 1.4 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 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Ford Mondeo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 980 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Ford Mondeo gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 330'000 km | 560'000 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: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 45 | 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Rover 75 is 2 cm longer than the Ford Mondeo, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 500 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
432 litres | no data | |
|
Ford Mondeo has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Rover 75 has 68 litres less trunk space than the Ford Mondeo. This could mean that the Rover 75 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| 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`000 | 1`865 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 1200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Ford Mondeo has
| |