Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Diesel | 4.2 Diesel | |
| 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: | 177 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 390 NM | 430 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 13.1 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 27 HP less power than Toyota Land Cruiser, whereas torque is 40 NM less than Toyota Land Cruiser. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.3 | 12.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 13.8 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 96 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 690 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 560'000 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 Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 10 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Land Cruiser might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover 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 | 4.89 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.89 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger, but lower. Land Rover Range Rover is 6 cm longer than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 2 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 7 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.2 metres less than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |