1964 Citroen 2CV vs. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 45 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Citroen 2CV. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Citroen 2CV would be higher. At 4,394 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover (301 HP @ 5750 RPM) has 283 more horse power than 1964 Citroen 2CV. (18 HP @ 3500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1964 Citroen 2CV. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 1926 kg more than 1964 Citroen 2CV. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2009 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1964 Citroen 2CV. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover Range Rover will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
1964 Citroen 2CV | 2009 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Citroen | Land Rover |
Model | 2CV | Range Rover |
Year Released | 1964 | 2009 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 425 cc | 4394 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 2 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | boxer | V |
Horse Power | 18 HP | 301 HP |
Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 5750 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 560 kg | 2486 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3790 mm | 4510 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1610 mm | 1930 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2410 mm | 3230 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.9 L/100km | 24.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 88 L |