Land Rover Range Rover 1988 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 1985
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 2.5 - 4.0 (petrol, diesel) | 4.0 (diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 121 - 185 HP | 103 - 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 279 - 313 NM | 241 - 315 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 - 19.5 seconds | 17.5 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 - 15.4 | 10.5 - 12.9 | |
|
On average, Land Rover Range Rover equipped with diesel engines consume 1.4 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: | 4.48 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.84 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is smaller. Land Rover Range Rover is 27 cm shorter than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 13.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 1.5 metres less than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 3`500 | ~ 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |