Subaru Forester 2000 vs Land Rover Freelander 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Diesel | |
| Petrol engines (Subaru Forester) are generally quieter, smoother, and better suited for short trips due to quicker warm-up times. Diesel (Land Rover Freelander) engines, on the other hand, offer superior fuel efficiency and torque, making them ideal for long-distance driving and heavy loads. Read more: Petrol vs. Diesel: Fuel Economy and Key Differences. | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 97 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 210 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 8.4 seconds | 14.6 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is more dynamic to drive. Subaru Forester engine produces 73 HP more power than Land Rover Freelander, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Land Rover Freelander. Thanks to more power Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 6.2 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 7.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.4 l/100km | 7.6 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 2.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Subaru Forester could require 330 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 3.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 600 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 770 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Freelander 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 320'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 9 years | 11 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Honda Accord, Rover 25, Rover 45 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Freelander 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: | 4.45 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.58 m | 1.76 m | |
| Subaru Forester is 7 cm longer than the Land Rover Freelander, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 18 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 0.8 metres less than that of the Land Rover Freelander, which means Subaru Forester can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`800 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | average | |
| Subaru Forester has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Land Rover Freelander has serious deffects in 95 percent more cases than Subaru Forester, so Subaru Forester quality is probably significantly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |