Land Rover Freelander 2003 vs Subaru Forester 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.8 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 117 HP | 125 HP | |
| Torque: | 160 NM | 184 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | 13.4 seconds | |
| Land Rover Freelander engine produces 8 HP less power than Subaru Forester, whereas torque is 24 NM less than Subaru Forester. Despite less power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.4 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 10.0 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Freelander could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 690 km in combined cycle | |
| 750 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| Subaru Forester gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.44 m | 4.45 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.74 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.59 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 1 cm shorter than the Subaru Forester, 7 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 12 cm higher. | |||
| 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 Subaru Forester, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | high | |
| Subaru Forester has slightly fewer faults. Deffect rate in annual technical inspection is similar for both cars, it's slightly higher for Land Rover Freelander, so Subaru Forester quality could be a bit better. | |||
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 2400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |