1966 BMW 1602 vs. 1995 Rover 400
To start off, 1995 Rover 400 is newer by 29 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 BMW 1602. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 BMW 1602 would be higher. At 1,589 cc (4 cylinders), 1995 Rover 400 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1995 Rover 400 (109 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 26 more horse power than 1966 BMW 1602. (83 HP @ 5700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1995 Rover 400 should accelerate faster than 1966 BMW 1602.
Because 1966 BMW 1602 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1966 BMW 1602. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1995 Rover 400, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 1995 Rover 400 (145 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 BMW 1602. (130 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 1995 Rover 400 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 BMW 1602.
Compare all specifications:
1966 BMW 1602 | 1995 Rover 400 | |
Make | BMW | Rover |
Model | 1602 | 400 |
Year Released | 1966 | 1995 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1574 cc | 1589 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 83 HP | 109 HP |
Engine RPM | 5700 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 130 Nm | 145 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.6:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4240 mm | 4370 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1600 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2510 mm | 2560 mm |