2000 Mazda 626 vs. 2008 Rover 75
To start off, 2008 Rover 75 is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Mazda 626. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Mazda 626 would be higher. At 2,497 cc, 2008 Rover 75 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 Rover 75 weights approximately 139 kg more than 2000 Mazda 626.
Because 2000 Mazda 626 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2008 Rover 75. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Mazda 626 will offer significantly more control. 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 Mazda 626 (392 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 152 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Rover 75. (240 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2000 Mazda 626 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Rover 75.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Mazda 626 | 2008 Rover 75 | |
Make | Mazda | Rover |
Model | 626 | 75 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2008 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2496 cc | 2497 cc |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 392 Nm | 240 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1386 kg | 1525 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4610 mm | 4000 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2620 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 65 L |