Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs Chrysler Pacifica 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Petrol | 3.5 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: | 282 HP | 253 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 339 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 10 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 29 HP more power than Chrysler Pacifica, whereas torque is 101 NM more than Chrysler Pacifica. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 16.2 | 11.3 | |
|
The Chrysler Pacifica is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover consumes 4.9 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 735 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 87 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 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: | 460'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including BMW 5 sērija, BMW X5, BMW 7 sērija | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 5.05 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 2.01 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.69 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 13 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 369 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 369 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 2250 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 9.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 1.7 metres more than that of the Chrysler Pacifica, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`500 kg | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5400 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Chrysler Pacifica has
| |