DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2000 Land Rover Range Rover vs 2000 Holden Commodore Comparison

Compare technical specifications, scores and everyday-use differences side by side.

VS
WINNER

Holden Commodore

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points.

64.5–64.75
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

Land RoverMakeHolden
Range RoverModelCommodore
2000Model year2000
Off-road vehicleBody typeSedan
5Seats5
5Doors4

Performance

—0–100 km/h9,0 s
0 km/hTop speed0 km/h
3900 ccEngine displacement3791 cc
190 HPPower200 HP
0 NmTorque304 Nm
8Cylinders6

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
0 ltFuel tank75 lt
—Urban consumption10,5 lt
—Extra-urban consumption6,8 lt

Transmission & Chassis

—DrivetrainRear-wheel drive
—Gears5
—Tyre size205/65 R15
YesABSYes

Dimensions

—Length4884 mm
—Width1842 mm
—Height1450 mm
—Weight1550 Kg
—Wheelbase2788 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2000 Land Rover Range Rover and 2000 Holden Commodore approach the same decision from different angles. We compare the exact versions so changes in engine, transmission, dimensions and equipment are not hidden behind the model names.

Overall, Holden Commodore leads the E-Kıyasla score by 0.25 points. The score provides a consistent summary, while the best choice can still change with priorities such as urban efficiency, luggage space, performance or equipment.

SIMILAR COMPARISONS

Similar comparisons

Explore related comparisons featuring cars from this matchup.

Comments are loading…