Rover 75 1999 vs Mazda 626 1999
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 152 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 11.8 seconds | |
|
Rover 75 is more dynamic to drive. Rover 75 engine produces 50 HP more power than Mazda 626, whereas torque is 33 NM more than Mazda 626. Thanks to more power Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Mazda 626 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 75 consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 75 could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mazda 626. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Mazda 626 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
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 Mazda 626 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 7 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 45 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 323, Mazda Premacy | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda 626 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 | 4.59 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.71 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.43 m | |
|
Rover 75 is larger. Rover 75 is 16 cm longer than the Mazda 626, 7 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 502 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
432 litres | no data | |
|
Mazda 626 has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Rover 75 has 70 litres less trunk space than the Mazda 626. 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 | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 75 is 1 metres more than that of the Mazda 626, which means Rover 75 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`685 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Mazda 626 has
| |