2006 Renault Clio vs. 1996 Rover 200
To start off, 2006 Renault Clio is newer by 10 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 1,395 cc (4 cylinders), 1996 Rover 200 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Rover 200 (102 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 5 more horse power than 2006 Renault Clio. (97 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1996 Rover 200 should accelerate faster than 2006 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, both vehicles can yield 127 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Renault Clio | 1996 Rover 200 | |
| Make | Renault | Rover |
| Model | Clio | 200 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1390 cc | 1395 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 97 HP | 102 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 127 Nm | 127 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 1030 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3780 mm | 3980 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1700 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2690 mm | 2510 mm |
