Mitsubishi L 200 1996 vs Land Rover Defender 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Double-row timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 122 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 300 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 17.5 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 engine produces 22 HP less power than Land Rover Defender, whereas torque is 60 NM less than Land Rover Defender. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | no data | 10.8 | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 75 litres | 75 litres | |
| 720 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 30 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi Pajero | Used also on 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. Mitsubishi L 200 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.66 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.57 m | 2.08 m | |
|
Mitsubishi L 200 is smaller. Mitsubishi L 200 is 10 cm shorter than the Land Rover Defender, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi L 200 is 51 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 12.8 meters | |
| Gross weight: | 2`835 kg | 3`500 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 4400 | 20 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Land Rover Defender has
| |