Lexus RX 2009 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.5 Petrol | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Lexus RX) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Range Rover Sport) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 277 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 346 NM | 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
|
Lexus RX is more dynamic to drive. Lexus RX engine produces 32 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, but torque is 254 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Thanks to more power Lexus RX reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 9.2 | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Lexus RX consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Lexus RX could require 210 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 72 litres | 84 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 670 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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: | 22 years | 17 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota RAV4, Toyota Camry, Toyota Sienna, Lexus ES | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Lexus RX might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.74 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 2.00 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Lexus RX is smaller. Lexus RX is 5 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, 12 cm narrower, while the height of Lexus RX is 9 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 958 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
no data | 2013 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Lexus RX is 0.5 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means Lexus RX can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Power steering: | Hydraulic power steering | Electric power steering | |
| Hydraulic power steering is technologically more complex, louder, increases fuel consumption and requires more servicing. It has the advantages of more power, less strain on the car's electrical system and better feedback (feeling) when steering. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`545 kg | 3`175 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 10 400 | 8800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Lexus RX has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
| |