Dodge Durango 1998 vs Land Rover Range Rover 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.9 Petrol | 4.4 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 282 HP | |
| Torque: | 305 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 9.2 seconds | |
| Dodge Durango engine produces 105 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover, whereas torque is 135 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 14.2 | 16.2 | |
| Dodge Durango consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that by driving the Dodge Durango over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 95 litres | 100 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 610 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km on highway | 790 km on highway | ||
| 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) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.91 m | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.96 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.82 m | |
|
Dodge Durango is smaller, but slightly higher. Dodge Durango is 4 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Dodge Durango is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 532 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2482 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.6 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 2`903 kg | 3`500 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Dodge Durango has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |