Jaguar F-Pace
Car comparison
Jaguar F-Pace 2.0tvsLand Rover Range Rover Evoque I · Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Evoque I · Facelift 2015
2.0 Si4
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.8 s
- Fastest top speed217 km/h135 mph
- Most powerful250 hp186 kW
- Highest torque365 Nm269 lb-ft
- Best power-to-weight146 hp/t109 kW/t6.8 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption7.1 L/100 km33.1 mpg US39.8 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions163 g/km
- Best overall score66/100
- Best performance score54/100
- Best economy score88/100
- Best practicality score90/100
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4
- Lightest1,658 kg3,655 lb
- Best estimated range897 km558 mi
Specification comparison
| Model | JaguarF-Pace2.0t | Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 250hp186kW | 240hp179kW |
| Torque | 365Nm269lb-ft | 340Nm251lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,710kg3,770lb | 1,658kg3,655lb |
| Top speed | 217 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 74.6s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated | 86.9s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.8s | 7.6s |
| 0-200 km/h | 36.8s Calculated | 42.4s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.4s Calculated | 7.2s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK | 7.8L/100 km30.2mpg US36.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | - | 10.3L/100 km22.8mpg US27.4mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | - | 6.4L/100 km36.8mpg US44.1mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.9s Calculated | 15.5s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 146hp/t109kW/t66hp/1000 lb Calculated | 145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 213Nm/t143lb-ft/ton Calculated | 205Nm/t137lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 887km551mi Calculated | 897km558mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,997cc122cu in | 1,999cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,746mm187in | 4,371mm172in |
| Width | 2,070mm81in | 1,985mm78in |
| Height | 1,667mm66in | 1,660mm65in |
| Wheelbase | 2,874mm113in | 2,660mm105in |
| Front track | 1,641mm65in | 1,625mm64in |
| Rear track | 1,654mm65in | 1,629mm64in |
| Ground clearance | 213mm8in | - |
| Trunk volume | 650L | - |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 63L | 70L |
| CO2 emissions | 163g/km | 181g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 5,500 rpm | 1,200-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 5,800 rpm | 1,750 rpm | 6,050 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | JaguarF-Pace2.0t | Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.4 s | 7.2 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.8 s | 7.6 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 36.8 s | 42.4 s |
| Top speed | 217 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.5 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.4 s | 6.6 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.7 s | 10.1 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.5 s | 13.0 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.9 s | 15.5 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 151 km/h 94 mph | 146 km/h 91 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 250 hp 186 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 240 hp 179 kW |
Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t has 10 hp more than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4.
The biggest power difference is between Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 and Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t: 10 hp (7 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 340 Nm 251 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 1,710 kg 3,770 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 1,658 kg 3,655 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 217 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 6.8 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 7.6 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t and Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4: 0.8 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 7.1 L/100 km 33.1 mpg US 39.8 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t and Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4: 0.7 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 887 km 551 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 897 km 558 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 250 hp 186 kW | 6.8 s | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 240 hp 179 kW | 7.6 s | 217 km/h 135 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t |
| 7.1 L/100 km 33.1 mpg US 39.8 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 |
| 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 7.1 L/100 km 33.1 mpg US 39.8 mpg UK | 6.8 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | 7.6 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace2.0t | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp | 7.1 L/100 km 33.1 mpg US 39.8 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | JaguarF-Pace2.0t | Land RoverRange Rover Evoque IFacelift 20152.0 Si4 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 250 hp 186 kW | 240 hp 179 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft | 340 Nm 251 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.8 s | 7.6 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 217 km/h 135 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,710 kg 3,770 lb | 1,658 kg 3,655 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.1 L/100 km 33.1 mpg US 39.8 mpg UK | 7.8 L/100 km 30.2 mpg US 36.2 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 887 km 551 mi | 897 km 558 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 163 g/km | 181 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 650 L 23.0 cu ft | - | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 146 hp/t 109 kW/t 6.8 kg/hp | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t | Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.1 L/100 km33.1 mpg US39.8 mpg UK | 7.8 L/100 km30.2 mpg US36.2 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 12.42 LC100 km | 13.65 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 20.00 LC100 mi | 21.97 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,065 L281 US gal234 UK gal | 1,170 L309 US gal257 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,864 LC/year | 2,048 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Jaguar F-Pace 2.0t
- Has 10 hp more
- Has 25 Nm more
- Is 0.8 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Uses 0.7 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 1 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Emits 18 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Cons
- Heaviest
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque I Facelift 2015 2.0 Si4
- Is 52 kg lighter
- Has 10 km (6 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Lightest
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























