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 5-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 Ford-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 190hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 171hp engine designed by Nissan.

The fact that the Nissan got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. 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. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the British car offers a considerable difference of 11% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Nissan is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Land Rover with an average rating of 3.8, and models under the Nissan badge with 4.3 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Range Rover Sport as average reliability-wise, and Pathfinder is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the British car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.7 out of 5.

Nissan is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.8 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 175 kilometers per hour, 18km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 9.9 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (29 mpg), in combined cycle.

Nissan 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 Japanese car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. It all continues in the same direction, with Nissan offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Nissan. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, among more than 12.000 different ones in our database.