Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs Lexus RX 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.4 Petrol | 3.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 282 HP | 204 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 283 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 9 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 78 HP more power than Lexus RX, whereas torque is 157 NM more than Lexus RX. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 0.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 16.2 | 12.2 | |
|
The Lexus RX is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover consumes 4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Lexus RX, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Range Rover could require 600 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 72 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 760 km on highway | ||
| 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.74 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.68 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 21 cm longer than the Lexus RX, 12 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 439 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 2130 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.2 metres more than that of the Lexus RX. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`500 kg | 2`380 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4800 | 5000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Lexus RX has
| |