1996 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1964 Lotus Elan
To start off, 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1964 Lotus Elan. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1964 Lotus Elan would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1996 Land Rover Range Rover (188 HP @ 4750 RPM) has 84 more horse power than 1964 Lotus Elan. (104 HP @ 6250 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1996 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1964 Lotus Elan.
Because 1996 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1964 Lotus Elan. 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Land Rover Range Rover | 1964 Lotus Elan | |
| Make | Land Rover | Lotus |
| Model | Range Rover | Elan |
| Year Released | 1996 | 1964 |
| Body Type | SUV | Convertible |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3946 cc | 1558 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 188 HP | 104 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 3700 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1430 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1820 mm | 1150 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2140 mm |
