Volkswagen Tiguan II
Car comparison
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDIvsLand Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonLand Rover Range Rover Velar
P 250 2.0
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.2 s
- Fastest top speed240 km/h149 mph Unrestricted230 km/h143 mph Restricted
- Highest torque500 Nm369 lb-ft
- Lightest1,740 kg3,836 lb
- Lowest combined fuel consumption6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.1 L/100 km33.1 mpg US39.8 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption5.6 L/100 km42.0 mpg US50.4 mpg UK
- Lowest CO2 emissions162 g/km
- Best estimated range968 km601 mi
- Best overall score69/100
- Best performance score60/100
- Best economy score90/100
Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0
- Most powerful250 hp186 kW
- Best power-to-weight139 hp/t103 kW/t7.2 kg/hp
- Largest trunk673 L
- Best practicality score91/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 240hp179kW | 250hp186kW |
| Torque | 500Nm369lb-ft | 365Nm269lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,740kg3,836lb | 1,804kg3,977lb |
| Gross weight | 2,360kg5,203lb | - |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Calculated | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 70.3s99% target: 238 km/h / 148 mph Calculated | 77.0s99% target: 215 km/h / 133 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.2s | 6.7s |
| 0-200 km/h | 24.2s Calculated | 37.5s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 5.9s Calculated | 6.3s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 6.2L/100 km37.9mpg US45.6mpg UK | 7.6L/100 km30.9mpg US37.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.1L/100 km33.1mpg US39.8mpg UK | 9.1L/100 km25.8mpg US31.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 5.6L/100 km42mpg US50.4mpg UK | 6.7L/100 km35.1mpg US42.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.3s Calculated | 14.8s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 138hp/t103kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated | 139hp/t103kW/t63hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 287Nm/t192lb-ft/ton Calculated | 202Nm/t135lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 968km601mi Calculated | 829km515mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,968cc120cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,486mm177in | 4,803mm189in |
| Width | 1,839mm72in | 2,032mm80in |
| Height | 1,673mm66in | 1,665mm66in |
| Wheelbase | 2,677mm105in | 2,874mm113in |
| Front track | 1,586mm62in | 1,644mm65in |
| Rear track | 1,576mm62in | 1,663mm65in |
| Ground clearance | 200mm8in | 251mm10in |
| Trunk volume | 615L | 673L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,655L | 1,731L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 60L | 63L |
| CO2 emissions | 162g/km | 173g/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.
- Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI: Power / Torque
- Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 4,000 rpm | 1,750-2,500 rpm | 4,250 rpm |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 5,500 rpm | 1,200-4,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 5.9 s | 6.3 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.2 s | 6.7 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 24.2 s | 37.5 s |
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph Likely limited | 217 km/h 135 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.3 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.3 s | 6.3 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.4 s | 9.6 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.1 s | 12.4 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.3 s | 14.8 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 162 km/h 101 mph | 151 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 240 hp 179 kW |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 250 hp 186 kW |
Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0 has 10 hp more than Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI.
The biggest power difference is between Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI and Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0: 10 hp (7 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 1,740 kg 3,836 lb |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 1,804 kg 3,977 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 217 km/h 135 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.2 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 6.7 s |
Although Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0 has more power, Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI and Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0: 0.5 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 7.6 L/100 km 30.9 mpg US 37.2 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI and Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0: 1.4 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 139 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 968 km 601 mi |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 829 km 515 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 240 hp 179 kW | 6.2 s | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 250 hp 186 kW | 6.7 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 | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
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 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI |
| 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | ||||||
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 |
| 7.6 L/100 km 30.9 mpg US 37.2 mpg UK | ||||||
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 6.2 s |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 7.6 L/100 km 30.9 mpg US 37.2 mpg UK | 6.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.3 kg/hp | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK |
| Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | 139 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 kg/hp | 7.6 L/100 km 30.9 mpg US 37.2 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolkswagenTiguan II2.0 BiTDI | Land RoverRange Rover VelarP 250 2.0 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 240 hp 179 kW | 250 hp 186 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 500 Nm 369 lb-ft | 365 Nm 269 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.2 s | 6.7 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | Unrestricted 240 km/h149 mph Restricted 230 km/h143 mph | 217 km/h 135 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,740 kg 3,836 lb | 1,804 kg 3,977 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 6.2 L/100 km 37.9 mpg US 45.6 mpg UK | 7.6 L/100 km 30.9 mpg US 37.2 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 968 km 601 mi | 829 km 515 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | 162 g/km | 173 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 615 L 21.7 cu ft | 673 L 23.8 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 138 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.3 kg/hp | 139 hp/t 103 kW/t 7.2 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 | Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI | Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 6.2 L/100 km37.9 mpg US45.6 mpg UK | 7.6 L/100 km30.9 mpg US37.2 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 10.85 LC100 km | 13.30 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 17.46 LC100 mi | 21.40 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 930 L246 US gal205 UK gal | 1,140 L301 US gal251 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,628 LC/year | 1,995 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volkswagen Tiguan II 2.0 BiTDI
- Has 135 Nm more
- Is 64 kg lighter
- Is 0.5 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 23 km/h (14 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 1.4 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 139 km (86 mi) more estimated range
- Emits 11 g/km less CO2
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Lowest power
- Smallest trunk
Land Rover Range Rover Velar P 250 2.0
- Has 10 hp more
- Has 1 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 58 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Most powerful
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Highest CO2 emissions
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























