Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 3-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Toyota-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 116hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 116hp engine designed by BMW.

The fact that the Land Rover got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the British car offers a considerable difference of 24% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Toyota is significantly less fault-prone, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Toyota with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Land Rover badge with 3.8 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed RAV4 as average reliability-wise, and Freelander is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.1 out of 5.

Toyota is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2.3 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 170 kilometers per hour, 6km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (38 mpg), in combined cycle.

Toyota appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the British car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. From there things take a different direction, with Toyota being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's really tough to make a final decision here, but if I'd need to, I'd say Toyota. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.