Land Rover Freelander 1998 vs Mitsubishi Pajero 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Diesel | 3.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 97 HP | 165 HP | |
| Torque: | 210 NM | 373 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 13.3 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Pajero is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Freelander engine produces 68 HP less power than Mitsubishi Pajero, whereas torque is 163 NM less than Mitsubishi Pajero. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Freelander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.7 | 10.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 7.6 l/100km | 10.0 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 Mitsubishi Pajero, 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 2.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Pajero. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 850 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 1030 km on highway | ||
| 770 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Mitsubishi Pajero gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.38 m | 4.28 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Land Rover Freelander is 10 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Pajero, 8 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: | average | high | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Land Rover Freelander has serious deffects in 55 percent more cases than Mitsubishi Pajero, so Mitsubishi Pajero quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 1600 | 3800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Freelander has
|
Mitsubishi Pajero has
| |