Subaru Forester 1997 vs Land Rover Freelander 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
| Subaru Forester engine produces 5 HP more power than Land Rover Freelander, whereas torque is 19 NM more than Land Rover Freelander. Despite the higher power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.0 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.8 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander, which means that by driving the Subaru Forester over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 660 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 810 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 610 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Subaru Forester 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: | 4.45 m | 4.38 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 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 16 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`500 | 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 (€): | 1800 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |