2002 Ford Puma vs. 1996 Rover 400
To start off, 2002 Ford Puma is newer by 6 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 1,993 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Rover 400 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2002 Ford Puma (100 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 15 more horse power than 1996 Rover 400. (85 HP @ 4500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2002 Ford Puma should accelerate faster than 1996 Rover 400. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Rover 400 weights approximately 185 kg more than 2002 Ford Puma.
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, 1996 Rover 400 (170 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 Ford Puma. (146 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 1996 Rover 400 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 Ford Puma.
Compare all specifications:
2002 Ford Puma | 1996 Rover 400 | |
Make | Ford | Rover |
Model | Puma | 400 |
Year Released | 2002 | 1996 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1560 cc | 1993 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 100 HP | 85 HP |
Engine RPM | 5750 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Torque | 146 Nm | 170 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 2000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Front | Front |
Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1035 kg | 1220 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4020 mm | 4320 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1680 mm | 1700 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1390 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2450 mm | 2630 mm |