Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009 vs BMW X5 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 381 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 740 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 5.4 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 136 HP less power than BMW X5, whereas torque is 140 NM less than BMW X5. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 3.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 12.0 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover Sport could require 255 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 84 litres | 85 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1130 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X5 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: | 227 mm (8.9 inches) | 222 mm (8.7 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 300'000 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 Sport engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 18 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW X6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| BMW X5 2013 3.0 engine: The N57 engine is a robust turbo diesel unit without any major systemic issues. Its longevity depends heavily on regular maintenance, including timely servicing, periodic cleaning of the intake system, and active regeneration of the diesel particulate filter.
The ... More about BMW X5 2013 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.86 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 2.01 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 7 cm shorter than the BMW X5, width is practically the same also the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 958 litres | 620 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 1750 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The BMW X5 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 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 263 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 12.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.9 metres less than that of the BMW X5, which means Land Rover Range Rover Sport can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`175 kg | 2`830 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 8600 | 12 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
BMW X5 has
| |