Land Rover Range Rover 1994 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 1990
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.5 - 4.6 | 2.8 - 4.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 226 HP | 91 - 215 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 - 400 NM | 188 - 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.9 - 17.5 seconds | 11.4 - 16 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 - 16.5 | 11.2 - 17.8 | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover petrol engines consumes on average 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than Toyota Land Cruiser. On average, Land Rover Range Rover equipped with diesel engines consume 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.84 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.91 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover is 13 cm shorter than the Toyota Land Cruiser, width is practically the same , while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 832 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1370 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.1 metres less than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`500 | ~ 2`993 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 12 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
| |