Land Rover Range Rover 2010 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 313 HP | 170 HP | |
| Torque: | 700 NM | 373 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.8 seconds | 14 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 143 HP more power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 327 NM more than Mitsubishi Pajero. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 6.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.4 | 10.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1210 km on highway | 1120 km on highway | ||
| 890 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.97 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | no data | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | no data | 1.87 m | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1790 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.4 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`200 | 3`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 15 200 | 11 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |