Land Rover Freelander 2002 vs Ford Maverick 2000
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Land Rover Freelander is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Ford Maverick can be equipped with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Ford Maverick also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 1.8 - 2.5 (petrol, diesel) | 2.0 - 3.0 (petrol) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 - 177 HP | 124 - 197 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 - 260 NM | 175 - 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 - 15.3 seconds | 10.5 - 13.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 - 12.4 | 9.8 - 12.8 | |
|
Land Rover Freelander petrol engines consumes on average 0.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than Ford Maverick. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.41 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.73 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Land Rover Freelander is 3 cm shorter than the Ford Maverick, width is practically the same , while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 985 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`000 | ~ 2`020 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Ford Maverick has
| |