Land Rover Range Rover 1988 vs Toyota 4-Runner 1989
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 - 4.2 | 2.4 - 3.0 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 113 - 203 HP | 90 - 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 - 340 NM | 192 - 295 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 - 19.8 seconds | 15.3 - 22 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 - 15.9 | 11.5 - 14.7 | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover petrol engines consumes on average 0.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than Toyota 4-Runner. On average, Land Rover Range Rover equipped with diesel engines consume 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota 4-Runner. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.69 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.75 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 1 cm longer than the Toyota 4-Runner, 13 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1200 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2100 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.5 metres more than that of the Toyota 4-Runner, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`500 | ~ 2`490 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9800 | 2200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota 4-Runner has
| |