Range rover sport vs bmw x5 2011

Since you are planning to purchase a vehicle and keep it for 5 years or more, I would strongly suggest that you buy the X5 diesel. It will not only save you a considerable amount on fuel costs (compared to any X5 gas engine) over the 5+ years of driving, it will also provide you with a very reliable set of wheels.
In addition, the X5d is a fun to drive SUV; it has so much torque ! Read on to see how the Range rover sport vs bmw x5 2011 compare

If reliability, very high depreciation and fuel costs are irrelevant to you, then get the Range Rover. You will pay a handsome premium for owning such a gas guzzling beast. 

Range rover sport vs bmw x5 2011

Compare 2011 BMW X5 vs 2011 Land Rover Range Rover Sport

2011 BMW X52011 Land Rover Range Rover SportAdd Vehicle
2011 BMW X52011 Land Rover Range Rover SportAdd Vehicle
Select styleAWD 4-Door 35dSelect style4WD 4-Door HSE
 Show Only Differences
Pricing
Invoice Price
$47,655$54,277
Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price
$51,800$59,645
Monthly Payment Estimate
$863 / month$994 / month
The Car Connection’s Take
TCC Rating
TCC’s Bottom Line
The 2011 BMW X5 offers impressive handling and features, but lacks the styling and interior that makes competitors pop, while the X5 M offers nearly sports car levels of performance with all the utility of a standard X5.The 2011 Land Rover Range Rover Sport offers impressive performance and features, whether on-road or off.
TCC Likes
Well-weighted steeringPlenty of powerResponsive handlingLots of standard equipmentGreat seating positionPowerful acceleration
TCC Dislikes
Styling a bit staleHigh priceiDrive systemSomewhat harsh rideFuel economy no better than roomier Range RoverLack of cabin space
Fuel Economy
City
19 mpg12 mpg
Highway
26 mpg17 mpg
Vehicle
EPA Classification
4WD Sport Utility Vehicle4WD Sport Utility Vehicle
Interior Dimensions
Passenger Capacity
55
Third Hip Room (in)
NA
Second Shoulder Room (in)
58.057.6
Front Leg Room (in)
40.042.4
Third Head Room (in)
NA
Front Hip Room (in)
– TBD –– TBD –
Third Shoulder Room (in)
NA
Second Leg Room (in)
36.637.6
Front Head Room (in)
36.638.5
Passenger Volume (ft³)
102.4– TBD –
Second Hip Room (in)
– TBD –– TBD –
Front Shoulder Room (in)
60.058.7
Third Leg Room (in)
NA
Second Head Room (in)
39.338.4
Exterior Dimensions
Track Width, Front (in)
64.763.2
Min Ground Clearance (in)
8.76.8
Length, Overall (in)
191.2188.3
Rear Door Opening Width (in)
– TBD –– TBD –
Height, Overall (in)
69.971.5
Liftover Height (in)
– TBD –– TBD –
Track Width, Rear (in)
65.063.5
Wheelbase (in)
115.5113.3
Rear Door Opening Height (in)
– TBD –– TBD –
Width, Max w/o mirrors (in)
76.176.1
Cargo Area Dimensions
Cargo Box (Area) Height (in)
– TBD –37.1
Cargo Area Length @ Floor to Seat 1 (in)
– TBD –69.1
Cargo Volume to Seat 1 (ft³)
61.871.0
Cargo Area Length @ Floor to Seat 3 (in)
NANA
Cargo Volume to Seat 3 (ft³)
NANA
Cargo Box Width @ Wheelhousings (in)
– TBD –44.1
Cargo Area Length @ Floor to Seat 2 (in)
– TBD –39.0
Cargo Volume to Seat 2 (ft³)
21.933.8
Cargo Area Width @ Beltline (in)
– TBD –48.0
Brakes
Disc – Rear (Yes or )
YesYes
Rear Brake Rotor Diam x Thickness (in)
– TBD –13.8 x – TBD –
Brake Type
PwrPwr
Rear Drum Diam x Width (in)
NANA
Disc – Front (Yes or )
YesYes
Front Brake Rotor Diam x Thickness (in)
– TBD –14.2 x – TBD –
Drum – Rear (Yes or )
NANA
Brake ABS System
4-WheelFour-Wheel
Fuel Tank
Fuel Tank Capacity, Approx (gal)
22.523.3
Steering
Turning Diameter – Curb to Curb (ft)
42.037.8
Steering Type
Pwr Rack & PinionPwr Rack & Pinion
Lock to Lock Turns (Steering)
– TBD –3.1
Turning Diameter – Wall to Wall (ft)
– TBD –39.0
Steering Ratio (:1), Overall
19.5– TBD –
Tires
Spare Tire Size
CompactCompact
Front Tire Order Code
– TBD –NA
Spare Tire Order Code
NANA
Rear Tire Size
255/55R18255/50HR19
Rear Tire Order Code
– TBD –NA
Front Tire Size
255/55R18255/50HR19
Trailering
Dead Weight Hitch – Max Trailer Wt. (lbs)
50007716
Wt Distributing Hitch – Max Trailer Wt. (lbs)
60007716
Dead Weight Hitch – Max Tongue Wt. (lbs)
500551
Wt Distributing Hitch – Max Tongue Wt. (lbs)
600551
Weight Information
Base Curb Weight (lbs)
51925540
Wheels
Rear Wheel Material
AlloyAlloy
Rear Wheel Size (in)
18 x 8.519 x 8.0
Front Wheel Material
AlloyAlloy
Spare Wheel Material
NAAlloy
Front Wheel Size (in)
18 x 8.519 x 8.0
Spare Wheel Size (in)
NA19 x 5.5
Cooling System
Total Cooling System Capacity (qts)
– TBD –– TBD –
Electrical
Cold Cranking Amps @ 0° F (Primary)
– TBD –– TBD –
Maximum Alternator Capacity (amps)
210150
Engine
Engine Type
Diesel I6Gas V8
Fuel System
DISMPI
SAE Net Torque @ RPM
425 @ 1750-2250375 @ 3500
Engine Order Code
NANA
Displacement
3.0L/1825.0L/305
SAE Net Horsepower @ RPM
265 @ 4200375 @ 6500
Mileage
Fuel Economy Est-Combined (MPG)
2214
EPA Fuel Economy Est – Hwy (MPG)
2617
EPA Fuel Economy Est – City (MPG)
1912
Transmission
Reverse Ratio (:1)
3.403.40
Second Gear Ratio (:1)
2.342.34
Trans Order Code
NANA
Final Drive Axle Ratio (:1)
3.643.54
Fourth Gear Ratio (:1)
1.141.14
Trans Description Cont.
AutomaticAutomatic w/OD
Transfer Case Gear Ratio (:1), Low
– TBD –2.93
Sixth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.690.69
First Gear Ratio (:1)
4.174.17
Clutch Size (in)
NANA
Third Gear Ratio (:1)
1.521.52
Trans Type
66
Transfer Case Gear Ratio (:1), High
1.001.00
Drivetrain
All-Wheel Drive4-Wheel Drive
Fifth Gear Ratio (:1)
0.870.87
Trans Description Cont. Again
NANA
Summary
Body Style
4 Door Sport Utility Vehicle4 Door
Vehicle Name
BMW X5Land Rover Range Rover Sport
Suspension
Suspension Type – Rear (Cont.)
NANA
Shock Absorber Diameter – Rear (mm)
– TBD –NA
Suspension Type – Front
Double WishboneDouble-Wishbone
Stabilizer Bar Diameter – Rear (in)
– TBD –NA
Suspension Type – Front (Cont.)
NAw/lower arms
Shock Absorber Diameter – Front (mm)
– TBD –NA
Stabilizer Bar Diameter – Front (in)
– TBD –NA
Suspension Type – Rear
IntegralDouble-Wishbone
Emissions
Tons/yr of CO2 Emissions @ 15K mi/year
9.612.4
EPA Greenhouse Gas Score
42
Crash Test Ratings
Overall Rating
Overall Frontal Barrier Crash Rating
Frontal Barrier Crash Rating Driver
Frontal Barrier Crash Rating Passenger
Overall Side Crash Rating
Side Barrier Rating
Side Barrier Rating Driver
Side Barrier Rating Passenger Rear Seat
Side Pole Rating Driver Front Seat
Combined Side Rating Front Seat
Combined Side Rating Rear Seat

Leave a Comment