Mitsubishi Pajero 2000 vs Land Rover Freelander 2000
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 100 HP | 112 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 260 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.8 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
|
Land Rover Freelander is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Pajero engine produces 12 HP less power than Land Rover Freelander, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Land Rover Freelander. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Pajero reaches 100 km/h speed 2.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 8.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.3 l/100km | 8.4 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Pajero could require 300 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 1.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 71 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 680 km in combined cycle | |
| 780 km on highway | 830 km on highway | ||
| 680 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| 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 | |||
| Engine production duration: | 30 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Mitsubishi L 200 | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Pajero might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.26 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.84 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.84 m | 1.76 m | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero is 12 cm shorter than the Land Rover Freelander, 4 cm wider, while the height of Mitsubishi Pajero is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Pajero is 1 metres less than that of the Land Rover Freelander, which means Mitsubishi Pajero can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`800 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | average | |
| 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 (€): | 4000 | 2000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Pajero has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |