Seat Toledo 1995 vs Rover 400 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: | 1.9 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 86 HP | |
| Torque: | 202 NM | 170 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Seat Toledo is more dynamic to drive. Seat Toledo engine produces 4 HP more power than Rover 400, whereas torque is 32 NM more than Rover 400. Thanks to more power Seat Toledo reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.1 | 5.7 | |
|
The Seat Toledo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Seat Toledo consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Rover 400, which means that by driving the Seat Toledo over 15,000 km in a year you can save 90 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 55 litres | 55 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 960 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 1240 km on highway | ||
| Seat Toledo 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: | 600'000 km | 370'000 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 Seat Toledo engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Audi A4, Volkswagen Sharan, Volkswagen Polo, Seat Cordoba | Used also on Rover 200 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Seat Toledo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.32 m | 4.32 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.42 m | 1.39 m | |
| Seat Toledo and Rover 400 are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1360 litres | 720 litres | |
|
Seat Toledo has more luggage capacity. Seat Toledo has 180 litres more trunk space than the Rover 400. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Seat Toledo (by 640 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.5 meters | 10.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Seat Toledo is 0.2 metres more than that of the Rover 400. | |||
| Gross weight: | 1`580 kg | 1`720 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`080 kg | 1`295 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 500 kg | 425 kg | |
| Seat Toledo load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 15 procentiem more than Rover 400. Therefore, Seat Toledo is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | low | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 800 | no data | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Seat Toledo has
|
| |