Land Rover Freelander 2002 vs Nissan X-Trail 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 314 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | 11.5 seconds | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 24 HP less power than Nissan X-Trail, whereas torque is 54 NM less than Nissan X-Trail. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 7.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.3 l/100km | 8.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Freelander could require 60 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 0.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Nissan X-Trail. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 60 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 750 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan X-Trail gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Almera, Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.51 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.76 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.68 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 13 cm shorter than the Nissan X-Trail, 4 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Freelander is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 410 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1841 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Freelander is 1 metres more than that of the Nissan X-Trail, which means Land Rover Freelander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`000 | 2`050 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Nissan X-Trail has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Land Rover Freelander has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Nissan X-Trail, so Nissan X-Trail quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 2600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Nissan X-Trail has
| |