Land Rover Freelander 2003 vs Mazda Tribute 2004
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.3 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Land Rover Freelander) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Mazda Tribute) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 200 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | 10.7 seconds | |
|
Mazda Tribute is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 38 HP less power than Mazda Tribute, but torque is 60 NM more than Mazda Tribute. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 10.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.1 l/100km | 10.9 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda Tribute, which means that by driving the Land Rover Freelander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 420 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.8 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mazda Tribute. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 62 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 720 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Freelander 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Mazda 6, Mazda 3 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mazda Tribute might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Land Rover Freelander 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. | |||
| Mazda Tribute 2004 2.3 engine: The cooling system pump and thermostat, engine mounts (which can cause vibration), lambda sensor, and intake manifold adjuster are the most common problems with this engine. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.45 m | 4.43 m | |
| Width: | 1.81 m | 1.83 m | |
| Height: | 1.71 m | 1.76 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 2 cm longer than the Mazda Tribute, 2 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 368 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2245 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 0.8 metres more than that of the Mazda Tribute, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 1`978 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 3200 | 3000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mazda Tribute has
| |