Land Rover Range Rover 2013 vs Audi Q7 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 339 HP | 272 HP | |
| Torque: | 700 NM | 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 6.3 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 67 HP more power than Audi Q7, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Audi Q7. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 9.5 l/100km | |
|
The Audi Q7 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q7, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover could require 390 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Audi Q7. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 105 litres | 85 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 1390 km in combined cycle | |
| 1380 km on highway | 1570 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 890 km with real consumption | ||
| Audi Q7 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 470'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Land Rover Range Rover engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Range Rover Sport | Used also on Audi A4 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 5.01 m | |
| Width: | 2.07 m | 1.97 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.74 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover and Audi Q7 are practically the same length. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 770 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 770 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 550 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2030 litres | 1955 litres | |
| The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover (by 75 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 12.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.1 metres less than that of the Audi Q7. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`200 | 2`940 | |
| Safety: | |||
| The Land Rover Range Rover scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 45 600 | 32 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Audi Q7 has
| |