2000 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass
To start off, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass would be higher. At 3,946 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 610 kg more than 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass.
Because 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 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. 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass has automatic transmission and 2000 Land Rover Range Rover has manual transmission. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Land Rover Range Rover | 1981 Oldsmobile Cutlass | |
| Make | Land Rover | Oldsmobile |
| Model | Range Rover | Cutlass |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1981 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3946 cc | 3790 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 187 HP | 0 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Automatic |
| Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 1480 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 5030 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1840 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1820 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2760 mm |
