Kia XCeed 2019 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018
| Comparing electrical vehicle (EV) with combustion engine (ICE) one is a complex task, but we are doing our best. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
| Engine: | 1.6 Petrol | 2.0 Hybrid | |
| Petrol engines (Kia XCeed) are generally cheaper to purchase and maintain, with simpler mechanics and consistent highway performance. Hybrid (Land Rover Range Rover Evoque) engines, on the other hand, provide significantly better fuel efficiency and lower emissions, especially in urban and stop-and-go traffic conditions. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 200 HP | 300 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | 6.6 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Kia XCeed engine produces 100 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 135 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Kia XCeed reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Consumption: | 7.1 l/100km | 8.1 l/100km | |
| Fuel cost per 100km: | 13.10 € | no data | |
|
Change fuel prices per unit to adjust the calculation to the fuel prices in your country. Petrol€/l | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 50 litres | 65 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 250'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 15 years | 9 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Kia Sportage, Kia Ceed, Hyundai Sonata, Hyundai Tucson, Hyundai Elantra | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Land Rover Defender, Land Rover Range Rover Sport | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Kia XCeed might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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: | 4.40 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.83 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.50 m | 1.65 m | |
| Kia XCeed is 2 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Kia XCeed is 15 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 426 litres | 591 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1383 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Kia XCeed has 165 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. This could mean that the Kia XCeed uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Kia XCeed is 1 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Kia XCeed can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`880 | 2`450 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 21 000 | 25 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Kia XCeed has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |