Land Rover Freelander 2000 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2000
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engines: | 1.8 - 2.5 | 2.5 - 3.5 | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 - 177 HP | 100 - 202 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 - 260 NM | 240 - 373 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.1 - 15.3 seconds | 10 - 17.8 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 - 12.4 | 9.5 - 14.2 | |
|
Land Rover Freelander petrol engines consumes on average 2.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than Mitsubishi Pajero. On average, Land Rover Freelander equipped with diesel engines consume 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.40 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 13 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 7 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 1 metres more than that of the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`000 | ~ 2`800 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | below average | above average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |