2000 Renault Clio vs. 1996 Rover 200
To start off, 2000 Renault Clio 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 1,998 cc (4 cylinders), 2000 Renault Clio is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Renault Clio (171 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 68 more horse power than 1996 Rover 200. (103 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Renault Clio should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 200. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Rover 200 weights approximately 20 kg more than 2000 Renault Clio.
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, 2000 Renault Clio (200 Nm @ 5400 RPM) has 73 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Rover 200. (127 Nm @ 5000 RPM). This means 2000 Renault Clio will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Rover 200.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Renault Clio | 1996 Rover 200 | |
Make | Renault | Rover |
Model | Clio | 200 |
Year Released | 2000 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1998 cc | 1396 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 171 HP | 103 HP |
Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 200 Nm | 127 Nm |
Torque RPM | 5400 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Vehicle Weight | 1055 kg | 1075 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3780 mm | 4230 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1690 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2480 mm | 2510 mm |