Land Rover Range Rover 1994 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 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: | 136 HP | 99 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.3 seconds | 16.4 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is more dynamic to drive. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 37 HP more power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Mitsubishi Pajero. Thanks to more power Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 11.4 | |
| Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover over 15,000 km in a year you can save 120 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 75 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 650 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 870 km on highway | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover 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) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 years | 30 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Used also on Mitsubishi L 200 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Pajero 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: | 4.71 m | 4.70 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.70 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.86 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger, but slightly lower. Land Rover Range Rover is 1 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 19 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1080 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 1080 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2050 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 3`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |