Toyota Land Cruiser 2002 vs Land Rover Range Rover 2002
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.2 Diesel | 2.9 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: | 204 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 390 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 13.6 seconds | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is more dynamic to drive. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 27 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover, whereas torque is 40 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover. Thanks to more power Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 0.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.6 | 11.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 13.8 l/100km | 12.2 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 195 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 96 litres | 100 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 880 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1060 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 810 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 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 Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 4 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: | 4.89 m | 4.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.96 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.82 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is smaller, but higher. Toyota Land Cruiser is 6 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 7 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.2 metres more than that of the Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 5800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |