2000 Chrysler ESX 3 vs. 2009 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2009 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 would be higher. At 3,192 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Land Rover LR2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (231 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 157 more horse power than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. (74 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3.
Because 2009 Land Rover LR2 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 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, 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 (332 Nm) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Land Rover LR2. (317 Nm). This means 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Land Rover LR2.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Chrysler ESX 3 | 2009 Land Rover LR2 | |
| Make | Chrysler | Land Rover |
| Model | ESX 3 | LR2 |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1499 cc | 3192 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 74 HP | 231 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6300 RPM |
| Torque | 332 Nm | 317 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4500 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1910 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3000 mm | 2670 mm |
