DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Rover Mini MK vs 2000 ZAZ 1103 Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Rover Mini MK

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points.

43.5–43.25
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

RoverMakeZAZ
Mini MKModel1103
2000Model year2000
HatchbackBody typeHatchback
5Seats5
3Doors5

Performance

13,4 s0–100 km/h17,0 s
140 km/hTop speed153 km/h
1274 ccEngine displacement1254 cc
50 HPPower60 HP
89 NmTorque94 Nm
4Cylinders4

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
34 ltFuel tank38 lt
7,6 ltUrban consumption—
5,2 ltExtra-urban consumption—
8,4 ltAverage consumption—

Transmission & Chassis

Front-wheel driveDrivetrainFront-wheel drive
4Gears5
145/70 R12Tyre size155/70 R13
YesABSYes

Dimensions

3050 mmLength3980 mm
1410 mmWidth1564 mm
1350 mmHeight1410 mm
645 KgWeight790 Kg
2035 mmWheelbase2320 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Rover Mini MK and 2000 ZAZ 1103 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, Rover Mini MK leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 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.

Comments are loading…