2000 Land Rover Range Rover vs. 2013 Mini Roadster
To start off, 2013 Mini Roadster is newer by 13 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Land Rover Range Rover. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Land Rover Range Rover would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 835 kg more than 2013 Mini Roadster.
Because 2000 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2013 Mini Roadster. 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. Let's talk about torque, 2000 Land Rover Range Rover (321 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 42 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mini Roadster. (279 Nm @ 5100 RPM). This means 2000 Land Rover Range Rover will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mini Roadster.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Land Rover Range Rover | 2013 Mini Roadster | |
| Make | Land Rover | Mini |
| Model | Range Rover | Roadster |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2013 |
| Body Type | SUV | Roadster |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 187 HP | 0 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4750 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 321 Nm | 279 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 5100 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
| Vehicle Weight | 2090 kg | 1255 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4720 mm | 3758 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1892 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1820 mm | 1391 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2750 mm | 2467 mm |
