2000 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 1996 Rover 400
To start off, 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 4 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 5,670 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2000 Chevrolet Camaro 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 Chevrolet Camaro. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 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 Chevrolet Camaro (468 Nm) has 323 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 400. (145 Nm). This means 2000 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 400.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chevrolet Camaro | 1996 Rover 400 | |
Make | Chevrolet | Rover |
Model | Camaro | 400 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5670 cc | 1589 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 109 HP |
Torque | 468 Nm | 145 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4370 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1330 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2570 mm | 2560 mm |