1983 Mazda RX-7 vs. 1996 Rover 200
To start off, 1996 Rover 200 is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1983 Mazda RX-7. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1983 Mazda RX-7 would be higher. At 2,292 cc, 1983 Mazda RX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Rover 200 (143 HP @ 6750 RPM) has 38 more horse power than 1983 Mazda RX-7. (105 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Rover 200 should accelerate faster than 1983 Mazda RX-7.
Because 1983 Mazda RX-7 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 1983 Mazda RX-7. 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. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Rover 200 (174 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 29 more torque (in Nm) than 1983 Mazda RX-7. (145 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1996 Rover 200 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1983 Mazda RX-7.
Compare all specifications:
1983 Mazda RX-7 | 1996 Rover 200 | |
Make | Mazda | Rover |
Model | RX-7 | 200 |
Year Released | 1983 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2292 cc | 1794 cc |
Engine Type | dual-disk rotary | in-line |
Horse Power | 105 HP | 143 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6750 RPM |
Torque | 145 Nm | 174 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1060 kg | 1060 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4290 mm | 3980 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1270 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2510 mm |