Land Rover Freelander 2000 vs Nissan X-Trail 2001
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 2.5 | 2.0 - 2.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 - 177 HP | 114 - 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 - 260 NM | 192 - 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 - 15.3 seconds | 9.9 - 13.7 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 - 12.4 | 7.2 - 10.0 | |
|
Land Rover Freelander petrol engines consumes on average 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than Nissan X-Trail. On average, Land Rover Freelander equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.68 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 11 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 4 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1841 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 0.6 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`000 | ~ 2`010 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |