Seat Toledo 1996 vs Rover 200 1996
| Body: | Sedan | Hatchback | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The hatchback generally has more luggage space thanks to a larger trunk door opening and the ability to convert the rear of the passenger compartment into luggage space. Sedans tend to be quieter than hatchbacks, due to a more isolated rear area. | |||
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 1.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 101 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 140 NM | 145 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.3 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Rover 200 is a more dynamic driving. Seat Toledo engine produces 11 HP less power than Rover 200, whereas torque is 5 NM less than Rover 200. Due to the lower power, Seat Toledo reaches 100 km/h speed 1.4 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.8 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.9 l/100km | 8.3 l/100km | |
|
By specification Seat Toledo consumes 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Rover 200, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Seat Toledo could require 90 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Seat Toledo consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 200. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 50 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 900 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 390'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Seat Ibiza, Seat Cordoba | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Rover 25, Rover 400, Rover 45 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Rover 200 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.32 m | 3.97 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.42 m | |
| Seat Toledo is 35 cm longer than the Rover 200, 3 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 304 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1360 litres | 1086 litres | |
|
Seat Toledo has more luggage capacity. Seat Toledo has 246 litres more trunk space than the Rover 200. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Seat Toledo (by 274 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Toledo is 0.1 metres more than that of the Rover 200. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`680 | 1`510 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Toledo has
|
Rover 200 has
| |