2004 Ford Econoline vs. 2010 Land Rover LR3
To start off, 2010 Land Rover LR3 is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Ford Econoline. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Ford Econoline would be higher. At 4,394 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Land Rover LR3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Land Rover LR3 (296 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 99 more horse power than 2004 Ford Econoline. (197 HP @ 4700 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover LR3 should accelerate faster than 2004 Ford Econoline.
Because 2010 Land Rover LR3 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2004 Ford Econoline. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover LR3 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, 2004 Ford Econoline (338 Nm @ 2700 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Land Rover LR3. (316 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2004 Ford Econoline will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Land Rover LR3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2004 Ford Econoline | 2010 Land Rover LR3 | |
| Make | Ford | Land Rover |
| Model | Econoline | LR3 |
| Year Released | 2004 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Van | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4195 cc | 4394 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 197 HP | 296 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4700 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Torque | 338 Nm | 316 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2700 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
