Land Rover Range Rover 1995 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 3.4 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Toyota Land Cruiser) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 178 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 303 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.5 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 42 HP less power than Toyota Land Cruiser, whereas torque is 33 NM less than Toyota Land Cruiser. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.4 | 14.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 14.4 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.7 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 405 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 780 km in combined cycle | 630 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 780 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 620 km with real consumption | ||
| 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) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.73 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.73 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.86 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover is 2 cm shorter than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 16 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 4 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1150 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1150 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.5 metres more than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`710 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 6800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |