1995 BMW CLS vs. 1996 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1995 BMW CLS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1995 BMW CLS would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1995 BMW CLS (350 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 162 more horse power than 1996 Land Rover Range Rover. (188 HP @ 4750 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1995 BMW CLS should accelerate faster than 1996 Land Rover Range Rover.
Because 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1995 BMW CLS. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 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. Let's talk about torque, 1996 Land Rover Range Rover (320 Nm) has 60 more torque (in Nm) than 1995 BMW CLS. (260 Nm). This means 1996 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1995 BMW CLS.
Compare all specifications:
| 1995 BMW CLS | 1996 Land Rover Range Rover | |
| Make | BMW | Land Rover |
| Model | CLS | Range Rover |
| Year Released | 1995 | 1996 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3001 cc | 3946 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 350 HP | 188 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4750 RPM |
| Torque | 260 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Width | 1360 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1360 mm | 1820 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2710 mm | 2750 mm |
