2009 Land Rover LR2 vs. 2010 Acura CSX
To start off, 2010 Acura CSX is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Land Rover LR2. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Land Rover LR2 would be higher. At 3,192 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Land Rover LR2 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (227 HP) has 30 more horse power than 2010 Acura CSX. (197 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 2010 Acura CSX.
Because 2009 Land Rover LR2 is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Acura CSX. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 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. 2009 Land Rover LR2 has automatic transmission and 2010 Acura CSX has manual transmission. 2010 Acura CSX will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2009 Land Rover LR2 will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Land Rover LR2 | 2010 Acura CSX | |
Make | Land Rover | Acura |
Model | LR2 | CSX |
Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3192 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 227 HP | 197 HP |
Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1752 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.4 L/100km | 6.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |