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

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. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. 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, 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.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Nissan is significantly less fault-prone, all the models observed together. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Nissan with an average rating of 4.3, and models under the Land Rover badge with 3.8 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Pathfinder as average reliability-wise, and Range Rover Sport is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 3.7, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 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. From there things take a different direction, with Land Rover offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the 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.