DETAILED CAR COMPARISON

2004 Nissan Cima vs 2004 Land Rover Range Rover Comparison

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

VS
WINNER

Nissan Cima

Leads the overall E-Kıyasla score by 1 points.

84.75–83.75
SPECIFICATION GROUPS

Every difference between the two cars

Basic Specifications

NissanMakeLand Rover
CimaModelRange Rover
2004Model year2004
SedanBody typeOff-road vehicle
5Seats5
4Doors5

Performance

—0–100 km/h9,2 s
230 km/hTop speed208 km/h
4494 ccEngine displacement4398 cc
280 HPPower286 HP
451 NmTorque440 Nm
8Cylinders8

Fuel & Consumption

PetrolFuel typePetrol
80 ltFuel tank100 lt
—Urban consumption22,2 lt
—Extra-urban consumption12,6 lt
10 ltAverage consumption16,2 lt

Transmission & Chassis

Rear-wheel driveDrivetrain4x4
4Gears5
225/60 R16Tyre size255/60 R18
YesABSYes

Dimensions

4970 mmLength4950 mm
1820 mmWidth1955 mm
1450 mmHeight1860 mm
1770 KgWeight2510 Kg
2830 mmWheelbase2880 mm

E-Kıyasla Editor’s Note

2004 Nissan Cima and 2004 Land Rover Range Rover 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, Nissan Cima leads the E-Kıyasla score by 1 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…