Subaru Forester 2002 vs Land Rover Freelander 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.4 seconds | 14.4 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is more dynamic to drive. Subaru Forester engine produces 13 HP more power than Land Rover Freelander, but torque is 76 NM less than Land Rover Freelander. Thanks to more power Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 | 7.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.0 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Forester could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 690 km in combined cycle | 770 km in combined cycle | |
| 890 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 600 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 380'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Subaru Forester might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.45 m | 4.42 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.81 m | |
| Height: | 1.59 m | 1.72 m | |
| Subaru Forester is 3 cm longer than the Land Rover Freelander, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 1 metres less than that of the Land Rover Freelander, which means Subaru Forester can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`500 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | above average | |
| Subaru Forester has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Land Rover Freelander, so Subaru Forester quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 2600 | 2800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |