Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs BMW X5 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 390 NM | 500 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 8.8 seconds | |
|
BMW X5 is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 41 HP less power than BMW X5, whereas torque is 110 NM less than BMW X5. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 4.8 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.3 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 10.5 l/100km | |
|
The BMW X5 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.9 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 285 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the BMW X5. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 980 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 1160 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 880 km with real consumption | ||
| BMW X5 gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW 3 sērija, BMW X3 | |
| 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. | |||
| BMW X5 2003 3.0 engine: The BMW M57 engine is regarded as one of the best German-built power units. Its inline-six layout is praised for reliability, and cars equipped with this engine are often more desirable on the used market. Despite delivering ... More about BMW X5 2003 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.67 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.72 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 28 cm longer than the BMW X5, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 465 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1550 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.4 metres less than that of the BMW X5, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`695 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 5400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
BMW X5 has
| |