Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 vs Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4

Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4

Source: wikipedia.org Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

19 reasons for

Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV, model available from 2012.
It has 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP ic petrol engine produced from 2013.
Drive 4x4 has automatic, 8 speed gearbox.

7 reasons for

Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV, model available from 2012.
It has 2.5 DI-D 178HP diesel engine produced from 2012 to 2014.
Drive 4x4 has manual gearbox.

Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4
Land Rover

19 reasons for Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340KM automat 4x4 in comparison to Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4

Reasons for
135

Maximal power

340 > 178 hp
The Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 has by 162 horsepowers more horsepower compared to Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4. The Land Rover Range Rover IV will be distinctly faster speed up thanks to bigger amout of horses under its hoot. Also leaving behind obstacles like TIRs or buses while driving should be a piece of cake for a car equipped with stronger motor.
59

Maximal torque

448 > 398 Nm
Maximum torque of the Land Rover is 50 Nm greater than the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4. As a result, the Land Rover Range Rover IV will accelerate slightly swifter and be better to overtake other cars. Appropriate use of the flexibility of the engine may also cause that the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV will use less fuel for every 100 km.
50

Acceleration 0-100 km/h

7.3 > 11.7 s
If a swift driving is what you realy like, the Land Rover will appeal to you as it’s acceleration to 100 km/h is 38 percent faster than the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II.
38

Trunk capacity

909 > 714 l
The Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 has 195 l bigger boot than the Mitsubishi. Such a difference is quite relevant so it will matters in terms of the comfort of the car’s usage. It is worth to note that the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV has 20 % bigger trunk size than the average in its segment. Roomy boot will be useful during family journeys and also during daily car’s usage.
33

Trunk capacity with seats down

2,031 > 1,813 l
22

Width

2,073 > 1,813 mm
Width of a car influences on room in the cabin and also stability during driving. The Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV is widther by 14 percent compared with the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4 and is not really worth considering. The medium for the „large SUV” segment amounts to around 1,866 millimeters and is by 11 percent larger than the width of the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV.
19

Fuel tank

104 > 69 l
In the category of fuel tank capacity it is the Land Rover that can carry 51 % more fuel compared with the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4. The average fuel tank capacity in the large off-road 4x4 segment, from which the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV comes from, is 84 l, whereas in large off-road 4x4 class (represented by the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV) it amounts to 84 l.
15

Wheelbase

2,926 > 2,806 mm
The Land Rover Range Rover IV has 4 percent longer wheelbase when compared to Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II. Consequently the Land Rover Range Rover IV is more safe and has a better stability. Moreover, longer wheelbase influences on convenient and more comfortable traveling.
14

Cylinders

6 > 4
11

Extra-urban range

981 > 959 km
9

Ground clearance

295 > 217 mm
Ground clearance is a critical factor in many important features of a vehicle. It is the most important for off-road vehicles still all cars appreciate the higher suspension. The Land Rover has 36 % higher clearance than the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4. Apart from easier mobility in rough terrain, the Land Rover will also be easier to overcome city obstacles like large curbs, for example.
8

Engine capacity

2,994 > 2,476 cc
The Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 has by 518 cc greater cubic capacity in comparison to the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV. This may have a little impact as far as acceleration is concerned, as both values are quite simmilar.
6

Length

4,999 > 4,695 mm
The Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV is 304 millimeters longer when compared to the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II. Long cars more of passenger space and also have plenty of trunk space. While the Land Rover Range Rover IV occurs to be better option for families or persons who value soft, smooth long-distance driving that make them feel fresh and relaxed upon arriving, the Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4 may appeal to the young as it will not make problems with parking and will be more maneuverable.
4

Rear track

1,681 > 1,513 mm
4

Cylinder layout

V-type > inline
A V engine is a upgraded version of a engine with cylinders arranged in a straight line which as far as we are concerned is {a better one. Engine of V configuration put in a the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 gives more torque at lower RPM ranges because of the power stroke coming from 2 sides of the crankshaft. This type of engime can house high numbers of cylinders without significant growth in its size. A Smooth engine work and pleasant sound is to driving fans certainly to a Vee engine’s advantage.
3

Price range

luxury > popular
0

Transmission

automatic > manual
For a comfortable travelling around town, it is good to have an automatic but the type of transmisison may have a substantial effect on fuel efficiency. Automatics may burn up more or less from 5 to 10% more than manuals.
0

Front track

1,690 > 1,520 mm
0

Valves

24 > 16

Mitsubishi

7 reasons for Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178KM manual 4x4 in comparison to Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4

Reasons for
112

Average consumption

8.4 > 12.5 l
The Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II consumes 33 percent less amount of fuel in the mixed cycle than the Land Rover. The difference in the amount of 33 % will be quite realy noticeable in everyday usage of the vehicle. In the long term it can generate a real savings.
56

Urban consumption

9.8 > 14.5 l
The Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV burns up 4.7 l fewer oil in city traffic in relation to the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4. The difference at the level of 32 % is quite noticeable in everyday use of the ride. What is more, in a long term it will bring you significant savings. Remember that fuel consumption may change depending on how dynamic you drive
30

Maximal torque RPM

1,995 > 3,500 revolutions/minute
A wider range and a lower number of rotations at which the highest torque is reached has an impact on an engine’s performance. However, in order to eliminate engines drawbacks like e.g. turbo lug, it is good to see a torque graph.
24

Extra-urban consumption

7.3 > 10.7 l
19

Range

854 > 827 km
1

Height

1,838 > 1,836 mm
If you are a tall driver or you happen to carry in the trunk stuffs of big dimensions, the Mitsubishi, which is by 2 millimeters higher than the Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4, would be better pick for you. However, these two vehicles do not vary much when it comes to its height and it should not be much observable.
0

Maximal power RPM

4,000 > 6,500 revolutions/minute

Cars specifications

Land Rover Range Rover IV SUV 3.0 V6 S/C 340HP automatic 4x4 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport II SUV 2.5 DI-D 178HP manual 4x4
    Gross trailer weight - 2,499 kg
    Price range luxury popular
    Model release date 2012 2012
    Facelifting no no
    Class full-size SUV full-size SUV
By using this site, you agree to the storage and use of cookie files. OK