1996 Rover 200 vs. 2012 Holden UTE
To start off, 2012 Holden UTE is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Rover 200. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Rover 200 would be higher. At 3,600 cc (6 cylinders), 2012 Holden UTE is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Holden UTE (242 HP) has 140 more horse power than 1996 Rover 200. (102 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Holden UTE should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 200.
Because 2012 Holden UTE 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 2012 Holden UTE. 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, 2012 Holden UTE (330 Nm) has 203 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 200. (127 Nm). This means 2012 Holden UTE will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 200.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Rover 200 | 2012 Holden UTE | |
Make | Rover | Holden |
Model | 200 | UTE |
Year Released | 1996 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1395 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 102 HP | 242 HP |
Torque | 127 Nm | 330 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |