2000 Chrysler ESX 3 vs. 2010 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 10 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 4,367 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover (311 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 237 more horse power than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. (74 HP @ 6400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3.
Because 2010 Land Rover Range Rover 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, 2010 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, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover (700 Nm) has 368 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3. (332 Nm). This means 2010 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Chrysler ESX 3.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Chrysler ESX 3 | 2010 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Chrysler | Land Rover |
Model | ESX 3 | Range Rover |
Year Released | 2000 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1499 cc | 4367 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 74 HP | 311 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 332 Nm | 700 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 4973 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 2035 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1877 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3000 mm | 2891 mm |