Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005 vs Lexus RX 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.7 Diesel | 3.0 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Sport) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Lexus RX) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 283 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Lexus RX is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 14 HP less power than Lexus RX, but torque is 157 NM more than Lexus RX. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.2 | 12.2 | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Lexus RX, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover Sport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 300 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 82 litres | 72 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 1000 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.74 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport is larger. Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 5 cm longer than the Lexus RX, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 958 litres | 439 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 2130 litres | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport has 519 litres more trunk space than the Lexus RX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Lexus RX (by 117 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.2 metres more than that of the Lexus RX. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`070 kg | 2`380 kg | |
| Net weight: | 2`455 kg | 1`835 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 615 kg | 545 kg | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 11 procentiem more than Lexus RX. Therefore, Land Rover Range Rover Sport is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 5200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Lexus RX has
| |