1996 Rover 400 vs. 2010 Suzuki Kizashi
To start off, 2010 Suzuki Kizashi is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Rover 400. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Rover 400 would be higher. At 2,400 cc (4 cylinders), 2010 Suzuki Kizashi is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Suzuki Kizashi (185 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 76 more horse power than 1996 Rover 400. (109 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Suzuki Kizashi should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 400.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2010 Suzuki Kizashi (230 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 85 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 400. (145 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2010 Suzuki Kizashi will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 400.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Rover 400 | 2010 Suzuki Kizashi | |
| Make | Rover | Suzuki |
| Model | 400 | Kizashi |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1589 cc | 2400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 109 HP | 185 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
| Torque | 145 Nm | 230 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4370 mm | 4651 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1690 mm | 1821 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1410 mm | 1471 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2700 mm |
