2008 Chrysler 300 vs. 2005 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2008 Chrysler 300 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Land Rover Range Rover. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Land Rover Range Rover would be higher. At 5,645 cc (8 cylinders), 2008 Chrysler 300 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 530 kg more than 2008 Chrysler 300.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2008 Chrysler 300 (526 Nm) has 85 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Land Rover Range Rover. (441 Nm). This means 2008 Chrysler 300 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Land Rover Range Rover.
Compare all specifications:
2008 Chrysler 300 | 2005 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Chrysler | Land Rover |
Model | 300 | Range Rover |
Year Released | 2008 | 2005 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5645 cc | 4392 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 282 HP |
Torque | 526 Nm | 441 Nm |
Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1910 kg | 2440 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5010 mm | 4960 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1870 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3050 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 12 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 100 L |