2000 • Renault
Clio
Renault Clio 1.1 (B/C/SB0A,B/CB0F) 2000Overall Score47.25/100
2000 Renault Clio vs 1996 Rover 100 Comparison
Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.
1996 • Rover
100
Rover 100 1996Overall Score46.25/100
WINNER
Renault Clio
Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 1 points.
47.25–46.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS
Every difference between the two cars
Basic Specifications
Renault ClioSpecificationRover 100
RenaultMakeRover
ClioModel100
2000Model year1996
HatchbackBody typeHatchback
5Seats5
3/5Doors3/5
Performance
Renault ClioSpecificationRover 100
15,0 s0–100 km/h14,8 s
160 km/hTop speed155 km/h
1149 ccEngine displacement1119 cc
58 HPPower60 HP
93 NmTorque90 Nm
4Cylinders4
Fuel & Consumption
Renault ClioSpecificationRover 100
PetrolFuel typePetrol
50 ltFuel tank35 lt
7,9 ltUrban consumption7,1 lt
5,2 ltExtra-urban consumption4,5 lt
—Average consumption6,1 lt
Transmission & Chassis
Renault ClioSpecificationRover 100
Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
5Gears5
165/65 R14Tyre size155/65 R13
YesABSYes
Dimensions
Renault ClioSpecificationRover 100
3773 mmLength3521 mm
1640 mmWidth1550 mm
1417 mmHeight1377 mm
880 KgWeight840 Kg
2475 mmWheelbase2269 mm
E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note
2000 Renault Clio and 1996 Rover 100 approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.
Overall, Renault Clio leads the E-Kıyasla score by 1 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.
SIMILAR COMPARISONS
Similar comparisons
Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.
VS
VS
VS
VS
VSComments are loading…