Land Rover Freelander 2002 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | 17.8 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Freelander is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 12 HP more power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 20 NM more than Mitsubishi Pajero. Thanks to more power Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 10.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Land Rover Freelander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 450 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 71 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 660 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 680 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Freelander gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 30 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mitsubishi L 200 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Pajero might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Freelander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.26 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 12 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 4 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Land Rover Freelander has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Pajero, so Mitsubishi Pajero quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2400 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |