Toyota Land Cruiser 2013 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | 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: | 190 HP | 200 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 441 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 10 HP less power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 21 NM less than Mitsubishi Pajero. Despite less power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 9.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 10.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Pajero 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 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Toyota Land Cruiser over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 88 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 940 km in combined cycle | |
| 1220 km on highway | 1100 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 820 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 480'000 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 Mitsubishi Pajero engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 26 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Hilux | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 2013 3.0 engine: The engine tends to be noisy and vibrate.
Nozzle life is limited when using poor quality fuel.
Increased oil consumption tends to occur over time. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.78 m | 4.90 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.85 m | 1.87 m | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser is 12 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 1 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 621 litres | 215 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1934 litres | 1790 litres | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Toyota Land Cruiser has 406 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Pajero. The Mitsubishi Pajero may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Land Cruiser (by 144 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.4 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means Toyota Land Cruiser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`990 | 2`910 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 27 400 | 11 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |