Land Rover Range Rover 2013 vs BMW X5 2013
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 339 HP | 381 HP | |
| Torque: | 700 NM | 740 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 6.9 seconds | 5.3 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 42 HP less power than BMW X5, whereas torque is 40 NM less than BMW X5. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 1.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.7 | 6.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 105 litres | 85 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1200 km in combined cycle | 1260 km in combined cycle | |
| 1380 km on highway | 1370 km on highway | ||
| 880 km with real consumption | 820 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 300'000 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 | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Range Rover Sport | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 7 sērija, BMW X6 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. BMW X5 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.00 m | 4.89 m | |
| Width: | 2.07 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 11 cm longer than the BMW X5, 14 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 550 litres | 650 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2030 litres | 1870 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Land Rover Range Rover has 100 litres less trunk space than the BMW X5. This could mean that the Land Rover Range Rover uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover (by 160 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.4 metres less than that of the BMW X5. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`200 | 2`900 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 47 800 | 27 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
BMW X5 has
| |