cat_logo
HomeRover

75

Rover 75 MPG In Simple Graphs

Average Rover 75 MPG by Years

Rover 75 MPG - Choose Generation


Quick Notes on Rover 75 MPG

    • average 2001 Rover 75 MPG: 32 MPG / 8.2 L per 100 km
    • worst 2001 Rover 75 MPG: 17 MPG / 13.9 L per 100 km
    • best 2001 Rover 75 MPG: 53 MPG / 4.4 L per 100 km
    • body weight: 1505 kg / 3319 lbs
    • body type: station wagon (estate)
    • difference highway / city: 46%
    • average engine power: 103 kW / 141 hp
    • difference from world average: 0%
    • max distance with full tank: 721 miles (1161 km)
    • Fuelson rating: 8 / 10

2001 Rover 75 MPG (Miles per Gallon)

2001 Rover 75 MPG is between 17 MPG and 53 MPG depending on engine:

  • 2.5 V6 — 17 to 34 MPG
  • 1.8 — 22 to 39 MPG
  • 1.8 16V T — 21 to 39 MPG
  • 2.0 CDT — 31 to 50 MPG
  • 2.0 CDTi — 29 to 53 MPG
  • 2.0 V6 — 17 to 34 MPG


    2001 Rover 75 MPG to weight ratio

    The 2001 Rover 75 MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:

  • 2.5 V6 — 61 kg/mpg
  • 1.8 — 48 kg/mpg
  • 1.8 16V T — 55 kg/mpg
  • 2.0 CDT — 37 kg/mpg
  • 2.0 CDTi — 42 kg/mpg
  • 2.0 V6 — 60 kg/mpg


    2001 Rover 75 MPG: difference from world average

    We calculated that 2001 Rover 75 MPG is up to 31% better than the world average consumption.

  • 2.5 V6 is 22% less economical than average car
  • 1.8 is 6% less economical than average car
  • 1.8 16V T is 16% less economical than average car
  • 2.0 CDT is 31% more economical than average car
  • 2.0 CDTi is 16% more economical than average car
  • 2.0 V6 is 22% less economical than average car


    • Additional Details On 2001 Rover 75 Tourer MPG

    Vehicle Consumption (city / highway) Consumption to weight ratio Difference from world average consumption Driving range (full tank) Consumption per passenger
    2.5 V6 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.6 / 7 L per 100 km)     		1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg 22% worse 311—559 miles
    (500—900 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km / person
    1.8 22 / 39 MPG
    (10.6 / 6.1 L per 100 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km to 100 kg 6% worse 373—684 miles
    (600—1100 km)     		1.6 L per 100 km / person
    1.8 16V T 21 / 39 MPG
    (11.3 / 6.1 L per 100 km)     		1.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg 16% worse 373—684 miles
    (600—1100 km)     		1.7 L per 100 km / person
    2.0 CDT 31 / 50 MPG
    (7.7 / 4.7 L per 100 km)     		2.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg 31% better 497—870 miles
    (800—1400 km)     		1.1 L per 100 km / person
    2.0 CDTi 29 / 53 MPG
    (8.1 / 4.4 L per 100 km)     		2.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg 16% better 497—932 miles
    (800—1500 km)     		1.3 L per 100 km / person
    2.0 V6 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.9 / 7 L per 100 km)     		1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg 22% worse 311—559 miles
    (500—900 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km / person

    Additional Details On 2001 Rover 75 Tourer MPG

    Vehicle 2.5 V6
    Consumption (city / highway) 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.6 / 7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 22% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 311—559 miles (500—900 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.9 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 1.8
    Consumption (city / highway) 22 / 39 MPG
    (10.6 / 6.1 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.9 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 6% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 373—684 miles (600—1100 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.6 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 1.8 16V T
    Consumption (city / highway) 21 / 39 MPG
    (11.3 / 6.1 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.7 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 16% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 373—684 miles (600—1100 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.7 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.0 CDT
    Consumption (city / highway) 31 / 50 MPG
    (7.7 / 4.7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 2.8 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 31% better
    Driving range (full tank) 497—870 miles (800—1400 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.1 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.0 CDTi
    Consumption (city / highway) 29 / 53 MPG
    (8.1 / 4.4 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 2.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 16% better
    Driving range (full tank) 497—932 miles (800—1500 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.3 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.0 V6
    Consumption (city / highway) 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.9 / 7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 22% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 311—559 miles (500—900 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.9 L per 100 km / person

    Quick Notes on Rover 75 MPG

      • average 1999 Rover 75 MPG: 31 MPG / 8.2 L per 100 km
      • worst 1999 Rover 75 MPG: 17 MPG / 13.9 L per 100 km
      • best 1999 Rover 75 MPG: 53 MPG / 4.4 L per 100 km
      • body weight: 1485 kg / 3274 lbs
      • body type: sedan
      • difference highway / city: 46%
      • average engine power: 103 kW / 141 hp
      • difference from world average: 3% worse
      • max distance with full tank: 662 miles (1066 km)
      • Fuelson rating: 8 / 10

    1999 Rover 75 MPG (Miles per Gallon)

    1999 Rover 75 MPG is between 17 MPG and 53 MPG depending on engine:

  • 2.0 V6 — 17 to 34 MPG
  • 1.8 — 22 to 39 MPG
  • 2.5 V6 — 17 to 34 MPG
  • 1.8 16V T — 21 to 39 MPG
  • 2.0 CDTi — 29 to 53 MPG
  • 2.0 CDT — 31 to 50 MPG


    1999 Rover 75 MPG to weight ratio

    The 1999 Rover 75 MPG to weight ratio is shown in the graph:

  • 2.0 V6 — 58 kg/mpg
  • 1.8 — 48 kg/mpg
  • 2.5 V6 — 58 kg/mpg
  • 1.8 16V T — 53 kg/mpg
  • 2.0 CDTi — 41 kg/mpg
  • 2.0 CDT — 38 kg/mpg


    1999 Rover 75 MPG: difference from world average

    We calculated that 1999 Rover 75 MPG is up to 22% better than the world average consumption.

  • 2.0 V6 is 22% less economical than average car
  • 1.8 is 6% less economical than average car
  • 2.5 V6 is 22% less economical than average car
  • 1.8 16V T is 16% less economical than average car
  • 2.0 CDTi is 16% more economical than average car
  • 2.0 CDT is 22% more economical than average car


    • Additional Details On 1999 Rover 75 (RJ) MPG

    Vehicle Consumption (city / highway) Consumption to weight ratio Difference from world average consumption Driving range (full tank) Consumption per passenger
    2.0 V6 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.9 / 7 L per 100 km)     		1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg 22% worse 311—559 miles
    (500—900 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km / person
    1.8 22 / 39 MPG
    (10.6 / 6.1 L per 100 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km to 100 kg 6% worse 373—684 miles
    (600—1100 km)     		1.6 L per 100 km / person
    2.5 V6 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.6 / 7 L per 100 km)     		1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg 22% worse 311—559 miles
    (500—900 km)     		1.9 L per 100 km / person
    1.8 16V T 21 / 39 MPG
    (11.3 / 6.1 L per 100 km)     		1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg 16% worse 373—684 miles
    (600—1100 km)     		1.7 L per 100 km / person
    2.0 CDTi 29 / 53 MPG
    (8.1 / 4.4 L per 100 km)     		2.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg 16% better 497—932 miles
    (800—1500 km)     		1.3 L per 100 km / person
    2.0 CDT 31 / 50 MPG
    (7.7 / 4.7 L per 100 km)     		2.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg 22% better 497—870 miles
    (800—1400 km)     		1.2 L per 100 km / person

    Additional Details On 1999 Rover 75 (RJ) MPG

    Vehicle 2.0 V6
    Consumption (city / highway) 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.9 / 7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 22% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 311—559 miles (500—900 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.9 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 1.8
    Consumption (city / highway) 22 / 39 MPG
    (10.6 / 6.1 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.9 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 6% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 373—684 miles (600—1100 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.6 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.5 V6
    Consumption (city / highway) 17 / 34 MPG
    (13.6 / 7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.5 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 22% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 311—559 miles (500—900 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.9 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 1.8 16V T
    Consumption (city / highway) 21 / 39 MPG
    (11.3 / 6.1 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 1.6 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 16% worse
    Driving range (full tank) 373—684 miles (600—1100 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.7 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.0 CDTi
    Consumption (city / highway) 29 / 53 MPG
    (8.1 / 4.4 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 2.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 16% better
    Driving range (full tank) 497—932 miles (800—1500 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.3 L per 100 km / person
    Vehicle 2.0 CDT
    Consumption (city / highway) 31 / 50 MPG
    (7.7 / 4.7 L per 100 km)
    Consumption to weight ratio 2.4 L per 100 km to 100 kg
    Difference from world average consumption 22% better
    Driving range (full tank) 497—870 miles (800—1400 km)
    Consumption per passenger 1.2 L per 100 km / person

    Related Posts

    Fuel Economy - Our Ratings