2005 Chrysler 300 vs. 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport
To start off, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chrysler 300. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chrysler 300 would be higher. At 5,653 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Chrysler 300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (385 HP) has 45 more horse power than 2005 Chrysler 300. (340 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport should accelerate faster than 2005 Chrysler 300. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Chrysler 300 weights approximately 435 kg more than 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport.
Let's talk about torque, 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport (550 Nm) has 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chrysler 300. (529 Nm). This means 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chrysler 300.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chrysler 300 | 2006 Land Rover Range Rover Sport | |
Make | Chrysler | Land Rover |
Model | 300 | Range Rover Sport |
Year Released | 2005 | 2006 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5653 cc | 4197 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 340 HP | 385 HP |
Torque | 529 Nm | 550 Nm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1835 kg | 1400 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5010 mm | 4790 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1930 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1820 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3050 mm | 2750 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.4 L/100km | 13.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 18.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 15.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 88 L |