1980 Lotus Eclat vs. 1996 Rover 200
To start off, 1996 Rover 200 is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1980 Lotus Eclat. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1980 Lotus Eclat would be higher. At 1,971 cc (4 cylinders), 1980 Lotus Eclat is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Rover 200 weights approximately 10 kg more than 1980 Lotus Eclat.
Because 1980 Lotus Eclat 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 1980 Lotus Eclat. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Rover 200, 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.
Compare all specifications:
1980 Lotus Eclat | 1996 Rover 200 | |
Make | Lotus | Rover |
Model | Eclat | 200 |
Year Released | 1980 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Middle | Front |
Engine Size | 1971 cc | 1794 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 143 HP |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1050 kg | 1060 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4460 mm | 3980 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1210 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2490 mm | 2510 mm |