1999 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1982 Nissan Pulsar
To start off, 1999 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Nissan Pulsar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Nissan Pulsar would be higher. At 4,554 cc (8 cylinders), 1999 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1999 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 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, 1999 Land Rover Range Rover (407 Nm) has 292 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Nissan Pulsar. (115 Nm). This means 1999 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Nissan Pulsar.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Land Rover Range Rover | 1982 Nissan Pulsar | |
| Make | Land Rover | Nissan |
| Model | Range Rover | Pulsar |
| Year Released | 1999 | 1982 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4554 cc | 1488 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 70 HP |
| Torque | 407 Nm | 115 Nm |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Vehicle Length | 4450 mm | 3970 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1630 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1800 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2550 mm | 2420 mm |
