Land Rover Freelander 2002 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2003
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 112 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 260 NM | 373 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.4 seconds | 13.2 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Pajero is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 48 HP less power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 113 NM less than Mitsubishi Pajero. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.6 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.2 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Freelander consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero, which means that by driving the Land Rover Freelander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 375 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Freelander consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 770 km in combined cycle | 890 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 710 km with real consumption | 800 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Pajero 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: | 4.38 m | 4.32 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 6 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 10 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 | ||
| Quality: | average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Land Rover Freelander has serious deffects in 60 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Pajero, so Mitsubishi Pajero quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 4000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |