Rover 45

Rover 45: which version to buy and why

If you are choosing a Rover 45 rather than reading a model overview, the decision is inside one generation: 1 generation, Sedan, 1999–2005, with 14 versions in the catalogue of which 12 are shown here. Every listed car is FWD. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is engine, gearbox, and the duplicate listings that share a name.

If you are choosing a Rover 45 rather than reading a model overview, the decision is inside one generation: 1 generation, Sedan, 1999–2005, with 14 versions in the catalogue of which 12 are shown here. Every listed car is FWD. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is engine, gearbox, and the duplicate listings that share a name. Buy 1.8 MT (117 hp) if you want the shortest measured 0–100 km/h (9.3 s). Buy 2.0 AT (150 hp) if you want the highest power and top speed (205 km/h on one listing, 203 km/h on the other). Buy 2.0 MT (113 hp, Diesel) if you want the most torque (260 Nm). Buy 1.4 MT (103 hp, 1105 kg kerb) if you want the lightest measured kerb. Fuel use is measured on only some versions; the rest are not measured.

Generations: one generation, so no generation-to-generation step

Rover 45 has 1 generation (1999-01-01 to 2005-12-31), body Sedan, 14 versions, 12 shown. There is no second generation in these data, so nothing “changed” from one generation to the next. Differences below are between versions inside that single generation, including pairs that use the same name.

Engines and specs (comparison table)

Use the exact names. Where two rows share a name, they are told apart by power, kerb, or the 0–100 figure.

Engine placement on every version: Front, transverse. Gasoline versions use Distributed injection (multi-point); both 2.0 MT Diesel rows have fuel system not measured. Compression: 10.5 on Gasoline, 19.5 on Diesel. Bore × stroke: 1.4 MT 75 × 79; 1.6 MT 80 × 79; 1.8 MT and 1.8 CVT 80 × 89.3; 2.0 AT 80 × 66.2; 2.0 MT 84.5 × 88.9. Valves per cylinder: 4 on Gasoline, 2 on Diesel. Fuel grade: 95 on Gasoline, Diesel on 2.0 MT.

Power per litre (what extra displacement buys)

• 1.4 MT (103 hp, 1396 cc): 73.8 hp per litre.
• 1.6 MT (109 hp, 1588 cc): 68.6 hp per litre — 6 hp more than 1.4 MT for 192 cc extra, but 5.2 hp/l less specific output.
• 1.8 MT / 1.8 CVT (117 hp, 1796 cc): 65.1 hp per litre — 8 hp more than 1.6 MT for 208 cc extra.
• 2.0 AT (150 hp, 1997 cc, 6, V-shaped): 75.1 hp per litre — the densest Gasoline output in this set, 33 hp above 1.8 MT.
• 2.0 MT (101 hp, 1994 cc): 50.7 hp per litre.
• 2.0 MT (113 hp, 1994 cc): 56.7 hp per litre — 12 hp and 20 Nm more than the 101 hp 2.0 MT on the same 1994 cc.

The step 1.4 MT → 1.6 MT is +6 hp and +15 Nm. 1.6 MT → 1.8 MT is +8 hp and +22 Nm, and peak torque arrives at 2750 rpm instead of 4500 rpm. 1.8 MT → 2.0 AT is +33 hp and +25 Nm, but you leave Manual for Automatic and 4 Inline for 6 V-shaped.

Performance and economy: 0–100, top speed, mpg-style litres

Measured 0–100 km/h, fastest to slowest:

• 1.8 MT (117 hp), both 1150 kg and 1155 kg listings: 9.3 s, 195 km/h.
• 2.0 AT (150 hp) with 14.0 / 6.7 / 9.4: 9.5 s, 203 km/h.
• 2.0 MT (113 hp): 9.8 s, 190 km/h.
• 2.0 AT (150 hp) with 14.6 / 7 / 9.8: 10.2 s, 205 km/h — 0.7 s slower than the other 2.0 AT, 2 km/h faster.
• 1.6 MT (both kerb listings) and 1.8 CVT (1230 kg): 10.3 s. 1.6 MT tops out at 190 km/h; this 1.8 CVT at 183 km/h.
• 2.0 MT (101 hp): 10.6 s, 185 km/h.
• 1.4 MT (both): 11.2 s, 185 km/h.
• 1.8 CVT with 12.2 / 6.7 / 8.7: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured.

1.8 MT at 9.3 s is 1.9 s quicker than 1.4 MT at 11.2 s, with 14 hp more. The 113 hp 2.0 MT is 0.8 s quicker than the 101 hp 2.0 MT (9.8 vs 10.6). 1.8 CVT (1230 kg) is 1.0 s slower than 1.8 MT on the same 117 hp / 160 Nm engine (10.3 vs 9.3) and 12 km/h slower at the top (183 vs 195). That is the Variable cost in these numbers: same engine, +80 kg versus the 1150 kg 1.8 MT, slower sprint, lower top speed.

Fuel (l/100 km) is measured on four rows only:

• 1.4 MT (1180 kg): 9.3 city / 5.5 highway / 6.9 combined. CO2 not measured.
• 1.8 CVT (1230 kg): 11.9 / 6.5 / 8.5, CO2 203.
• 1.8 CVT (kerb not measured): 12.2 / 6.7 / 8.7, CO2 not measured — 0.3 / 0.2 / 0.2 higher than the other 1.8 CVT.
• 2.0 AT (10.2 s listing): 14.6 / 7 / 9.8, CO2 224.
• 2.0 AT (9.5 s listing): 14.0 / 6.7 / 9.4, CO2 not measured — 0.6 / 0.3 / 0.4 lower than the other 2.0 AT.

1.4 MT, 1.6 MT, 1.8 MT, and both 2.0 MT Diesel rows: city, highway, and combined not measured. Eco class: not measured on every version. Combined, the measured Gasoline gap from 1.4 MT (6.9) to 2.0 AT (9.8) is +2.9 l/100 km. On a 55 l tank that is the difference between 55/6.9 ≈ 8.0 full-tank units of combined range versus 55/9.8 ≈ 5.6 on that 2.0 AT. 1.8 CVT (8.5 combined) sits between them: 55/8.5 ≈ 6.5 tank units.

Dimensions and weight: kg per horsepower, tank, clearance, wheels

Tank 55 l and ground clearance 150 mm on every version. Wheel size: not measured on every version. Front brakes Disc, rear Disc, front suspension Independent, spring — all versions.

Kerb and kg per hp (kerb ÷ hp):

• Lightest: 1.4 MT 1105 kg → 10.73 kg/hp. Gross 1640 kg.
• 1.6 MT 1120 kg → 10.28 kg/hp. Gross 1660 kg.
• 1.6 MT 1125 kg → 10.32 kg/hp. Gross 1660 kg.
• 1.8 MT 1150 kg → 9.83 kg/hp. Gross 1695 kg.
• 1.8 MT 1155 kg → 9.87 kg/hp. Gross 1695 kg.
• 1.4 MT 1180 kg → 11.46 kg/hp. Gross 1640 kg. Same 103 hp as the 1105 kg 1.4 MT, 75 kg heavier.
• 2.0 MT both: 1225 kg → 12.13 kg/hp at 101 hp, 10.84 kg/hp at 113 hp. Gross 1770 kg — highest gross in the set.
• 1.8 CVT 1230 kg → 10.51 kg/hp. Gross 1640 kg.
• 1.8 CVT (12.2 / 6.7 / 8.7): kerb not measured, gross 1640 kg.
• Heaviest kerb: 2.0 AT 1340 kg (both) → 8.93 kg/hp. Gross 1720 kg.

Lowest mass per horsepower is 2.0 AT at 8.93 kg/hp. Lowest absolute kerb is 1.4 MT at 1105 kg. 1.8 MT (1150 kg) is 45 kg heavier than that light 1.4 MT but 1.90 kg/hp lighter in specific mass (9.83 vs 10.73). Payload (gross − kerb) where both exist: 1.4 MT 1105 kg → 535 kg; 1.4 MT 1180 kg → 460 kg; 1.8 MT 1150 kg → 545 kg; 2.0 AT 1340 kg → 380 kg; 2.0 MT 1225 kg → 545 kg.

Rear suspension is not the same on every row. Independent, spring at the rear: both 1.4 MT (1180 kg), both 2.0 AT, 1.8 CVT (both listings), and 2.0 MT (113 hp). Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem at the rear: 1.6 MT (both), 1.8 MT (both), 1.4 MT (1105 kg), 2.0 MT (101 hp). If rear layout is a buying filter, do not treat every 2.0 MT as identical: 101 hp is Semi-independent, springorts hélicoïdaux, sem; 113 hp is Independent, spring.

Which version to choose

If the number that matters is 0–100 km/h: 1.8 MT (117 hp) at 9.3 s. It beats the quicker 2.0 AT listing by 0.2 s with 33 hp less and 185–190 kg less kerb (1150/1155 vs 1340). Fuel on 1.8 MT is not measured.

If the number that matters is peak power or top speed: 2.0 AT (150 hp). One listing: 205 km/h and 10.2 s; the other: 203 km/h and 9.5 s. You pay in kerb (1340 kg) and in measured fuel (9.4–9.8 combined vs 6.9 on the 1180 kg 1.4 MT). Automatic, 5; 6, V-shaped.

If the number that matters is torque: 2.0 MT (113 hp) at 260 Nm from 2000 rpm, then 2.0 MT (101 hp) at 240 Nm. Both Diesel, Turbo, Manual, 5. The 113 hp row is 12 hp / 20 Nm / 0.8 s / 5 km/h ahead of the 101 hp row at the same 1225 kg kerb. Fuel on both Diesels is not measured.

If the number that matters is measured combined fuel: 1.4 MT (1180 kg) at 6.9 l/100 km. That is 2.9 less than 2.0 AT at 9.8 and 1.6 less than 1.8 CVT at 8.5. The other 1.4 MT (1105 kg) is lighter but its fuel is not measured, so you cannot claim it is more economical from these data.

If you want automatic-style shifting without the V-shaped 6: 1.8 CVT (117 hp), Variable, gears not measured. Versus 1.8 MT on the same engine: +80 kg (1230 vs 1150), +1.0 s to 100 km/h, −12 km/h top speed, and you get a measured 8.5 combined. The second 1.8 CVT is 0.2 combined higher (8.7) with 0–100, top speed, and kerb not measured.

If you want the middle Gasoline Manual: 1.6 MT (109 hp). It is 0.9 s quicker than 1.4 MT (10.3 vs 11.2) and 1.0 s slower than 1.8 MT (9.3). Fuel not measured. The two 1.6 MT rows differ by 5 kg kerb (1120 vs 1125); power, 0–100, and top speed are the same.

Duplicate-name rule for this catalogue: do not order “a 1.4 MT” or “a 2.0 MT” without the extra number. 1.4 MT is 1105 kg or 1180 kg. 1.6 MT is 1120 kg or 1125 kg. 1.8 MT is 1150 kg or 1155 kg. 1.8 CVT is the 10.3 s / 1230 kg / CO2 203 row or the not-measured performance row. 2.0 AT is the 10.2 s / 205 km/h / CO2 224 row or the 9.5 s / 203 km/h row. 2.0 MT is 101 hp or 113 hp.

Problems, reliability, and what is not in the data

Problems and reliability are not measured in this dataset. Eco class is not measured. Wheel size is not measured. Fuel is not measured on 1.4 MT (1105 kg), both 1.6 MT, both 1.8 MT, and both 2.0 MT. CO2 is measured only on 1.8 CVT (1230 kg) at 203 and 2.0 AT (10.2 s) at 224; all other CO2 values are not measured. There are no prices in these data, so “what extra money buys” here means what extra displacement, cylinders, and gearbox buy in hp, Nm, seconds, and litres — not a market quote.

Drive does not split the range: FWD on all 12 shown versions. Body does not split it: Sedan, 1 generation, 1999–2005. The buying split is Gasoline 4 Inline Manual (1.4 MT, 1.6 MT, 1.8 MT), Gasoline 4 Inline Variable (1.8 CVT), Gasoline 6 V-shaped Automatic (2.0 AT), and Diesel 4 Inline Turbo Manual (2.0 MT 101 hp versus 2.0 MT 113 hp).