Mitsubishi Pajero 2006 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2011
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.2 Diesel | 2.2 Diesel | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 373 NM | n/a NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.2 seconds | 8.5 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Pajero engine produces 20 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Pajero reaches 100 km/h speed 4.7 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 6.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.9 l/100km | 8.5 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Pajero could require 600 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 3.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.39 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.97 m | |
| Height: | 1.85 m | 1.64 m | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero is 2 cm longer than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Pajero is 22 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 575 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.3 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`800 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 14 200 | 13 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |