Land Rover Range Rover 2005 vs Chrysler Pacifica 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.2 Petrol | 4.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 396 HP | 257 HP | |
| Torque: | 560 NM | 355 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 7.5 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 139 HP more power than Chrysler Pacifica, whereas torque is 205 NM more than Chrysler Pacifica. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 16.0 | 12.3 | |
|
The Chrysler Pacifica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover consumes 3.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Chrysler Pacifica, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover could require 555 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 87 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 620 km in combined cycle | 700 km in combined cycle | |
| Chrysler Pacifica 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) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 460'000 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 Chrysler Pacifica engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 4 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Range Rover Sport | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Town & Country, Dodge Caravan, Volkswagen Routan | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Chrysler Pacifica might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Chrysler Pacifica engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 5.05 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 2.01 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is smaller, but higher. Land Rover Range Rover is 10 cm shorter than the Chrysler Pacifica, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 535 litres | 370 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 370 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 535 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2250 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.5 metres less than that of the Chrysler Pacifica, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Chrysler Pacifica has
| |