2000 AC Aceca vs. 1998 Rover 400
To start off, 2000 AC Aceca is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1998 Rover 400. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1998 Rover 400 would be higher. At 3,504 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 AC Aceca is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 AC Aceca (346 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 237 more horse power than 1998 Rover 400. (109 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 AC Aceca should accelerate faster than 1998 Rover 400.
Because 2000 AC Aceca 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 2000 AC Aceca. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1998 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, 2000 AC Aceca (400 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 255 more torque (in Nm) than 1998 Rover 400. (145 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2000 AC Aceca will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1998 Rover 400.
Compare all specifications:
2000 AC Aceca | 1998 Rover 400 | |
Make | AC | Rover |
Model | Aceca | 400 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1998 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3504 cc | 1589 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 346 HP | 109 HP |
Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 145 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 83 mm | 80 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 79 mm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4640 mm | 4370 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2300 mm | 2560 mm |