Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 380 NM | 373 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque engine produces 20 HP less power than Mitsubishi Pajero, but torque is 7 NM more than Mitsubishi Pajero. Despite less power, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque reaches 100 km/h speed 2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 5.6 | 10.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.8 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 4.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque over 15,000 km in a year you can save 735 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque consumes 4.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 65 litres | 88 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1160 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 1270 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 830 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2018 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.37 m | 4.39 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.65 m | 1.85 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 1 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 3 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is 20 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 591 litres | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1383 litres | 1790 litres | |
| Even though the car is shorter, The Mitsubishi Pajero may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Pajero (by 407 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | 2`490 kg | 2`800 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`891 kg | 2`310 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 599 kg | 490 kg | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 18 procentiem more than Mitsubishi Pajero. Therefore, Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 26 000 | 12 400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |