Land Rover Freelander 2003 vs Ford Maverick 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 124 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 175 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Land Rover Freelander engine produces 12 HP less power than Ford Maverick, but torque is 85 NM more than Ford Maverick. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 9.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 11.3 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Maverick, which means that by driving the Land Rover Freelander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 330 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 3.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Ford Maverick. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 58 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 510 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Freelander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.72 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Land Rover Freelander is 6 cm longer than the Ford Maverick, 3 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 1 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 985 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`015 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Ford Maverick has
| |