BMW X5 2010 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Petrol | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (BMW X5) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Sport) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 306 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 400 NM | 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.8 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is more dynamic to drive. BMW X5 engine produces 61 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, but torque is 200 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Thanks to more power BMW X5 reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.4 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification BMW X5 consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the BMW X5 could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, BMW X5 consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 85 litres | 84 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 680 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 222 mm (8.7 inches) | 227 mm (8.9 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW 1 sērija, BMW X3, BMW X6 | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| BMW X5 2010 3.0 engine: Using poor quality oil on this engine will quickly lead to soot build-up, resulting in damage to the hydrocompensators, Vanos and Valvetronic systems. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.86 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 m | 2.00 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| BMW X5 is 7 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, 7 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 620 litres | 958 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1750 litres | 2013 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, This could mean that the BMW X5 uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 263 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.8 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the BMW X5 is 0.9 metres more than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means BMW X5 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`750 kg | 3`175 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 12 200 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
BMW X5 has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
| |