Rover 400: Which Version Should You Buy?
The Rover 400 choice depends on whether you prioritize performance, economy, transmission type, or lower kerb weight. The data covers two Sedan generations: the first from 1990 to 1998 with 14 modifications, and the second from 1995 to 2000 with 15.
The Rover 400 choice depends on whether you prioritize performance, economy, transmission type, or lower kerb weight. The data covers two Sedan generations: the first from 1990 to 1998 with 14 modifications, and the second from 1995 to 2000 with 15. Among the listed specifications, the first-generation 2.0 MT with 200 hp is the performance leader, while the first-generation 1.8 MT Diesel records the lowest fuel-consumption figures. For a more balanced Gasoline specification, the second-generation 2.0 MT combines 136 hp, 182 Nm, a 9.5-second 0–100 km/h time, and a 199 km/h top speed.
Rover 400 generations compared
The first-generation Rover 400 was produced from 1990 to 1998 as a Sedan and had 14 modifications. Its listed engines range from 67 to 200 hp. This generation offers the broadest performance spread, including naturally aspirated Gasoline engines, turbocharged Gasoline and Diesel engines, and both Manual and Automatic transmissions. Every listed version is FWD and has 150 mm of ground clearance and a 55-liter fuel tank.
The second-generation Rover 400 was produced from 1995 to 2000 as a Sedan and had 15 modifications. The specifications shown here include 1.4 MT, 1.6 MT, 1.6 AT, 2.0 MT, and 2.5 AT versions, with outputs from 86 to 175 hp. Every listed version is FWD, and transmission choices remain a 5-speed Manual or a 4-speed Automatic. Compared with the first generation, this generation adds the listed 175 hp 2.5 AT but does not match the earlier 200 hp 2.0 MT’s peak output.
Searches for a Rover 400 Tourer, estate, coupe, hatchback, or GTi cannot be resolved from this dataset: the supplied catalogue records identify both generations only as Sedan. Prices and current Rover 400 cars for sale are also not measured.
Rover 400 engine specs
Repeated names identify separate database entries and are distinguished below by power and generation.
| Generation and exact version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp | 111 hp | 145 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 122 hp | 122 hp | 138 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT, 136 hp | 136 hp | 185 Nm | 1994 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 2.0 MT, 200 hp | 200 hp | 237 Nm | 1994 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.8 MT, 88 hp | 88 hp | 181 Nm | 1769 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.9 MT, 67 hp | 67 hp | 121 Nm | 1905 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp | 103 hp | 127 Nm | 1396 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp and 137 Nm | 111 hp | 137 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 137 Nm | 111 hp | 137 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp, performance not measured | 111 hp | 137 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 122 hp and 139 Nm | 122 hp | 139 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation 1.8 MT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 174 Nm | 1796 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 1100 kg | 111 hp | 145 Nm | 1588 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 116 hp and 140 Nm | 116 hp | 140 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 2.5 AT, 175 hp | 175 hp | 240 Nm | 2497 cc | Gasoline | 6, V-shaped | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 86 hp | 86 hp | 170 Nm | 1994 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 105 hp | 105 hp | 210 Nm | 1994 cc | Diesel | 4, Inline | Turbo | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp and 127 Nm at 5000 rpm | 103 hp | 127 Nm | 1396 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp with economy measured | 111 hp | 145 Nm | 1589 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 136 hp | 136 hp | 182 Nm | 1994 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp and 127 Nm at 3000 rpm | 103 hp | 127 Nm | 1396 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 1125 kg | 111 hp | 145 Nm | 1588 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp with performance not measured | 111 hp | 145 Nm | 1589 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 116 hp and 143 Nm | 116 hp | 143 Nm | 1590 cc | Gasoline | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The first-generation 2.0 MT with 200 hp produces about 100.3 hp per liter, the highest specific output among the listed versions. The second-generation 2.5 AT produces about 70.1 hp per liter, while both listed 136 hp 2.0 MT versions produce about 68.2 hp per liter. Buyers seeking torque rather than specific output should note that the 2.5 AT reaches 240 Nm, just 3 Nm more than the 200 hp 2.0 MT.
Rover 400 performance and economy
| Generation and exact version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp | 10.8 s | 190 km/h | 9.4 L/100 km | 5.1 L/100 km | 6.5 L/100 km |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 122 hp and 138 Nm | 9.5 s | 190 km/h | 9.8 L/100 km | 7 L/100 km | 9 L/100 km |
| First generation 2.0 MT, 136 hp | 9.6 s | 200 km/h | 13.1 L/100 km | 6 L/100 km | 8.6 L/100 km |
| First generation 2.0 MT, 200 hp | not measured | 235 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| First generation 1.8 MT, 88 hp | 11.8 s | 171 km/h | 6.6 L/100 km | 4.3 L/100 km | 6.1 L/100 km |
| First generation 1.9 MT, 67 hp | not measured | 154 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| First generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp | 11.8 s | 185 km/h | 8.9 L/100 km | 5.1 L/100 km | 6.7 L/100 km |
| First generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp and measured performance | 11.2 s | 185 km/h | 10.5 L/100 km | 7.2 L/100 km | 9.1 L/100 km |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 137 Nm | 10 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| First generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp and unmeasured performance | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| First generation 1.6 MT, 122 hp and 139 Nm | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| First generation 1.8 MT, 145 hp | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 1100 kg | 10.8 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 116 hp and 140 Nm | 12.7 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 2.5 AT, 175 hp | 8.5 s | 225 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 86 hp | 14 s | 170 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 105 hp | 11 s | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp with economy measured | 11.8 s | 185 km/h | 8.9 L/100 km | 5.1 L/100 km | 6.5 L/100 km |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp with economy measured | not measured | 190 km/h | 10.1 L/100 km | 6.5 L/100 km | 8.1 L/100 km |
| Second generation 2.0 MT, 136 hp | 9.5 s | 199 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.4 MT, 103 hp with economy not measured | 11.8 s | 185 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.6 MT, 111 hp and 1125 kg | 10.8 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 111 hp with performance not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| Second generation 1.6 AT, 116 hp and 143 Nm | 12.7 s | 190 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
For acceleration with a measured result, the second-generation 2.5 AT is quickest at 8.5 seconds. It is 1 second faster than the second-generation 2.0 MT and 5.5 seconds faster than the 86 hp Diesel 2.0 MT. The first-generation 200 hp 2.0 MT has the highest measured top speed at 235 km/h, but its 0–100 km/h time is not measured.
For economy, the first-generation Diesel 1.8 MT records 6.6 L/100 km in the city, 4.3 L/100 km on the highway, and 6.1 L/100 km combined. Against the second-generation 1.4 MT with measured consumption, it uses 2.3 L/100 km less in the city, 0.8 L/100 km less on the highway, and 0.4 L/100 km less combined.
Rover 400 dimensions, weight, and tank capacity
Exterior dimensions, including length, are not measured in the supplied data. Wheel sizes are also not measured for every listed version. Ground clearance is 150 mm and tank capacity is 55 liters throughout the supplied specifications.
Kerb weight varies considerably. Among versions with a measured figure, the first-generation 1.6 MT with 122 hp and 138 Nm is lightest at 1075 kg. Its weight-to-power ratio is about 8.8 kg/hp. The first-generation 200 hp 2.0 MT weighs 1220 kg, giving the best listed ratio at 6.1 kg/hp. The second-generation 2.5 AT weighs 1350 kg, or about 7.7 kg/hp, and has a gross weight of 1830 kg.
The second-generation 136 hp 2.0 MT weighs 1240 kg and has a gross weight of 1720 kg. The first-generation 136 hp 2.0 MT weighs 1295 kg with the same 1720 kg gross weight, so the later car is 55 kg lighter while giving up 3 Nm and 1 km/h in the listed figures; it also reaches 100 km/h 0.1 second sooner.
Several versions have no recorded kerb or gross weight. Those values are not measured rather than zero.
Which Rover 400 version should you buy?
Choose the first-generation 2.0 MT with 200 hp if maximum output and top speed matter most. Its 200 hp, 237 Nm, 235 km/h top speed, and 6.1 kg/hp distinguish it from every other listed Rover 400. Its acceleration and consumption figures are not measured, however, so it cannot be compared completely on running performance or economy.
Choose the second-generation 2.5 AT if you want the quickest measured acceleration and an Automatic gearbox. It reaches 100 km/h in 8.5 seconds and 225 km/h, while producing 175 hp and 240 Nm. Compared with the second-generation 116 hp 1.6 AT, it adds 59 hp and at least 97 Nm, depending on which 1.6 AT entry is compared, and cuts the measured 0–100 km/h time by 4.2 seconds. The trade-off is a kerb weight of 1350 kg, 195 kg above the measured 1155 kg 1.6 AT entries.
Choose the second-generation 2.0 MT with 136 hp for the strongest numerical compromise. It is only 0.1 second quicker than the first-generation 136 hp 2.0 MT, while its 199 km/h top speed is 1 km/h lower and its torque is 3 Nm lower. Its 55 kg lower kerb weight is the clearer advantage. Consumption for the second-generation version is not measured, whereas the first-generation equivalent records 13.1 L/100 km city, 6 L/100 km highway, and 8.6 L/100 km combined.
Choose the first-generation 1.8 MT Diesel with 88 hp when measured fuel consumption takes priority. Its 6.1 L/100 km combined figure is the lowest recorded here. The second-generation 105 hp Diesel 2.0 MT offers 17 hp and 29 Nm more, reaches 100 km/h 0.8 second sooner, and has a top speed 14 km/h higher, but its consumption is not measured.
For a smaller Gasoline Manual, the second-generation 1.4 MT with measured economy combines 103 hp, a 11.8-second 0–100 km/h time, a 185 km/h top speed, and 6.5 L/100 km combined consumption. The comparable first-generation 1.4 MT has the same power, acceleration, top speed, city consumption, and highway consumption, but its combined figure is 6.7 L/100 km. That difference is 0.2 L/100 km in favor of the later entry.
For a 1.6 Automatic with measured economy, the second-generation 111 hp 1.6 AT records 10.1 L/100 km city, 6.5 L/100 km highway, and 8.1 L/100 km combined. Compared with the first-generation 111 hp 1.6 AT whose consumption is measured, this is 0.4 L/100 km lower in the city, 0.7 L/100 km lower on the highway, and 1 L/100 km lower combined. Its 0–100 km/h time is not measured, so the first generation’s recorded 11.2-second result remains the more complete performance specification.
Reliability, common problems, servicing requirements, and engine-bay details are not measured in the supplied data. They should therefore be investigated separately for the exact Rover 400 version under consideration rather than inferred from engine size, generation, or transmission alone.