Land Rover Range Rover 1988 vs Toyota Land Cruiser 1990
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 4.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 167 HP | 156 HP | |
| Torque: | 279 NM | 298 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 11 HP more power than Toyota Land Cruiser, but torque is 19 NM less than Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 14.7 | 15.6 | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.9 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 135 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 95 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 540 km in combined cycle | 600 km in combined cycle | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.48 m | 4.78 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.79 m | 1.87 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is smaller. Land Rover Range Rover is 30 cm shorter than the Toyota Land Cruiser, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 830 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1370 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 12 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.1 metres less than that of the Toyota Land Cruiser. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`960 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9800 | 12 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has
| |