2009 Land Rover LR2 vs. 2005 Mercury Mountaineer
To start off, 2009 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mercury Mountaineer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mercury Mountaineer would be higher. At 4,013 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Mercury Mountaineer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (227 HP) has 17 more horse power than 2005 Mercury Mountaineer. (210 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 2005 Mercury Mountaineer.
Let's talk about torque, 2005 Mercury Mountaineer (344 Nm) has 110 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Land Rover LR2. (234 Nm). This means 2005 Mercury Mountaineer will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Land Rover LR2.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Land Rover LR2 | 2005 Mercury Mountaineer | |
| Make | Land Rover | Mercury |
| Model | LR2 | Mountaineer |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3192 cc | 4013 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 227 HP | 210 HP |
| Torque | 234 Nm | 344 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 84 mm | 100 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 96 mm | 84 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.8:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1840 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
