Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 173 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 410 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 11.7 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 72 HP more power than Toyota Land Cruiser, whereas torque is 190 NM more than Toyota Land Cruiser. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 2.4 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 11.8 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Land Cruiser is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover Sport could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 84 litres | 87 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1070 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 730 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 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) | 220 mm (8.7 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: | 17 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | Used also on Toyota Hilux | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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. | |||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 2009 3.0 engine: The engine tends to be noisy and vibrate.
Nozzle life is limited when using poor quality fuel.
Increased oil consumption tends to occur over time. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.76 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.89 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport is larger, but lower. Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 3 cm longer than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 12 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 11 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 958 litres | 104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 1930 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage capacity. Land Rover Range Rover Sport has 854 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Land Cruiser. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 83 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.3 metres more than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`175 kg | 2`990 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 18 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |