Rover 75 1999 vs Mitsubishi Galant 1997
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 185 NM | 178 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.2 seconds | 9.7 seconds | |
| Rover 75 engine produces 14 HP more power than Mitsubishi Galant, whereas torque is 7 NM more than Mitsubishi Galant. Despite the higher power, Rover 75 reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.9 l/100km | 9.3 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Galant is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Rover 75 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Galant, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Rover 75 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Rover 75 consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Galant. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 750 km in combined cycle | |
| 920 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 650 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Galant 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 | 520'000 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 Mitsubishi Galant engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 46 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Rover 45 | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Outlander, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Galant might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.63 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.43 m | 1.42 m | |
|
Rover 75 is larger. Rover 75 is 12 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Galant, 4 cm wider, while the height of Rover 75 is 1 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 432 litres | 470 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
432 litres | 1400 litres | |
|
Mitsubishi Galant has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the Rover 75 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Galant (by 968 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Rover 75 is 0.6 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Galant, which means Rover 75 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`000 kg | 1`850 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`445 kg | 1`260 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 555 kg | 590 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Rover 75 has
|
Mitsubishi Galant has
| |