Subaru Forester 1998 vs Land Rover Freelander 1998
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 1.8 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 170 HP | 120 HP | |
| Torque: | 240 NM | 165 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 11.1 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is more dynamic to drive. Subaru Forester engine produces 50 HP more power than Land Rover Freelander, whereas torque is 75 NM more than Land Rover Freelander. Thanks to more power Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 1.8 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.5 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.3 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Freelander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Freelander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 570 km in combined cycle | 570 km in combined cycle | |
| 700 km on highway | 680 km on highway | ||
| 530 km with real consumption | 570 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) | |
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 (€): | 1800 | 1600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Land Rover Freelander has
| |