Jaguar F-Pace
Car comparison
Jaguar F-Pace 30tvsLand Rover Range Rover Sport II · Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Sport II · Facelift 2017
2.0 Si4
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Jaguar F-Pace 30t
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.1 s
- Fastest top speed233 km/h145 mph
- Most powerful300 hp224 kW
- Highest torque400 Nm295 lb-ft
- Lightest1,831 kg4,037 lb
- Best power-to-weight164 hp/t122 kW/t6.1 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption7.7 L/100 km30.5 mpg US36.7 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption9.4 L/100 km25.0 mpg US30.1 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption6.7 L/100 km35.1 mpg US42.2 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions175 g/km
- Best overall score69/100
- Best performance score60/100
- Best economy score86/100
- Best practicality score89/100
Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
- Best estimated range1,106 km687 mi
Specification comparison
| Model | JaguarF-Pace30t | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 300hp224kW | 300hp224kW |
| Torque | 400Nm295lb-ft | 400Nm295lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,831kg4,037lb | 2,083kg4,592lb |
| Gross weight | 2,460kg5,423lb | 3,000kg6,614lb |
| Top speed | 233 km/h 145 mph | 201 km/h 125 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 72.9s99% target: 231 km/h / 143 mph Calculated | 79.4s99% target: 199 km/h / 124 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.1s | 7.3s |
| 0-200 km/h | 26.6s Calculated | 94.8s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.8s Calculated | 6.9s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 7.7L/100 km30.5mpg US36.7mpg UK | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 9.4L/100 km25mpg US30.1mpg UK | 11.4L/100 km20.6mpg US24.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 6.7L/100 km35.1mpg US42.2mpg UK | 8.2L/100 km28.7mpg US34.4mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.3s Calculated | 15.4s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 164hp/t122kW/t74hp/1000 lb Calculated | 144hp/t107kW/t65hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 218Nm/t146lb-ft/ton Calculated | 192Nm/t128lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,065km662mi Calculated | 1,106km687mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,997cc122cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,731mm186in | 4,879mm192in |
| Width | 2,071mm82in | 2,073mm82in |
| Height | 1,666mm66in | 1,803mm71in |
| Wheelbase | 2,874mm113in | 2,923mm115in |
| Front track | 1,641mm65in | 1,693mm67in |
| Rear track | 1,654mm65in | 1,686mm66in |
| Ground clearance | 215mm8in | 278mm11in |
| Trunk volume | - | 221L |
| Max trunk volume | - | 1,686L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 7 |
| Fuel tank | 82L | 104L |
| CO2 emissions | 175g/km | 214g/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 30t: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 5,500 rpm | 1,500-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 5,500 rpm | 1,500-4,000 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | JaguarF-Pace30t | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.8 s | 6.9 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.1 s | 7.3 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 26.6 s | 94.8 s |
| Top speed | 233 km/h 145 mph | 201 km/h 125 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.3 s | 2.3 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.1 s | 6.4 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.3 s | 9.8 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.0 s | 12.8 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.3 s | 15.4 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 159 km/h 99 mph | 143 km/h 89 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 300 hp 224 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 300 hp 224 kW |
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 1,831 kg 4,037 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 2,083 kg 4,592 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 233 km/h 145 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 201 km/h 125 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 6.1 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 7.3 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Jaguar F-Pace 30t and Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: 1.2 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 7.7 L/100 km 30.5 mpg US 36.7 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Jaguar F-Pace 30t and Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4: 1.7 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 144 hp/t 107 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 1,065 km 662 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 1,106 km 687 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| JaguarF-Pace30t | 300 hp 224 kW | 6.1 s | 233 km/h 145 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 300 hp 224 kW | 7.3 s | 201 km/h 125 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-Pace30t |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 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-Pace30t |
| 7.7 L/100 km 30.5 mpg US 36.7 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 |
| 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||
Jaguar F-Pace 30t 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-Pace30t | 7.7 L/100 km 30.5 mpg US 36.7 mpg UK | 6.1 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | 7.3 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-Pace30t | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 7.7 L/100 km 30.5 mpg US 36.7 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | 144 hp/t 107 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | JaguarF-Pace30t | Land RoverRange Rover Sport IIFacelift 20172.0 Si4 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 300 hp 224 kW | 300 hp 224 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | 400 Nm 295 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.1 s | 7.3 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 233 km/h 145 mph | 201 km/h 125 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,831 kg 4,037 lb | 2,083 kg 4,592 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 7.7 L/100 km 30.5 mpg US 36.7 mpg UK | 9.4 L/100 km 25.0 mpg US 30.1 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,065 km 662 mi | 1,106 km 687 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 175 g/km | 214 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | - | 221 L 7.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 164 hp/t 122 kW/t 6.1 kg/hp | 144 hp/t 107 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 30t | Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 7.7 L/100 km30.5 mpg US36.7 mpg UK | 9.4 L/100 km25 mpg US30.1 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 13.48 LC100 km | 16.45 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 21.69 LC100 mi | 26.47 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,155 L305 US gal254 UK gal | 1,410 L372 US gal310 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,021 LC/year | 2,468 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Jaguar F-Pace 30t
- Is 252 kg lighter
- Is 1.2 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 32 km/h (20 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 1.7 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 20 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Emits 39 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
Land Rover Range Rover Sport II Facelift 2017 2.0 Si4
- Has 41 km (26 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























