2000 Ford TL-50 vs. 1996 Rover 200

To start off, 2000 Ford TL-50 is newer by 4 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 1,994 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Rover 200 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford TL-50 (128 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 43 more horse power than 1996 Rover 200. (85 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford TL-50 should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 200. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Ford TL-50 weights approximately 167 kg more than 1996 Rover 200. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2000 Ford TL-50 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 Ford TL-50. 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, 2000 Ford TL-50 (570 Nm) has 400 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 200. (170 Nm). This means 2000 Ford TL-50 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 200. 2000 Ford TL-50 has automatic transmission and 1996 Rover 200 has manual transmission. 1996 Rover 200 will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Ford TL-50 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: