Toyota Land Cruiser 1996 vs Land Rover Defender 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 113 HP | |
| Torque: | 295 NM | 265 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 18.6 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 12 HP more power than Land Rover Defender, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Land Rover Defender. Thanks to more power Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Defender is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Defender, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 150 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Defender. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 80 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 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. Land Rover Defender might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.60 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.79 m | |
| Height: | 1.86 m | 2.04 m | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser is 13 cm longer than the Land Rover Defender, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 18 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 742 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1150 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 12.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 1.4 metres less than that of the Land Rover Defender, which means Toyota Land Cruiser can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`680 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Land Rover Defender has
| |