Toyota Land Cruiser 1996 vs Land Rover Range Rover 1995
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 295 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.9 seconds | 17.5 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 11 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover, but torque is 25 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover. Despite less power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 11.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 11.9 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Land Cruiser is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that by driving the Toyota Land Cruiser over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 810 km in combined cycle | 780 km in combined cycle | |
| 910 km on highway | 930 km on highway | ||
| 800 km with real consumption | 750 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 | 420'000 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 | 8 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Land Cruiser might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Land Rover Range Rover engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.73 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.73 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.86 m | 1.82 m | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser is 2 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover, 16 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 742 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1150 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.5 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover, 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 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |