2005 Chrysler 300 vs. 2010 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2010 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 5 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 3,518 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Chrysler 300 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Chrysler 300 (253 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 23 more horse power than 2010 Land Rover LR2. (230 HP @ 6300 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Chrysler 300 should accelerate faster than 2010 Land Rover LR2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Land Rover LR2 weights approximately 376 kg more than 2005 Chrysler 300.
Let's talk about torque, 2005 Chrysler 300 (332 Nm) has 15 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Land Rover LR2. (317 Nm). This means 2005 Chrysler 300 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Land Rover LR2.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Chrysler 300 | 2010 Land Rover LR2 | |
Make | Chrysler | Land Rover |
Model | 300 | LR2 |
Year Released | 2005 | 2010 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3518 cc | 3200 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 253 HP | 230 HP |
Engine RPM | 6400 RPM | 6300 RPM |
Torque | 332 Nm | 317 Nm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1554 kg | 1930 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5010 mm | 4498 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1908 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1740 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2960 mm | 2659 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 70 L |