Tahoe RST vs Land Cruiser 3.5T EXR Comparison
Review Comparison
Positive
- No data found
Negative
- No data found
Positive
- Powerful off-road capabilities
- Exceptional reliability and durability
- Interior comfort and luxury equipment
Negative
- High fuel consumption
- High purchase and maintenance costs
- Limitations in maneuvering due to heavy weight
Price Comparison
QAR 312565
QAR 316805
QAR 300722
QAR 304821
QAR 4207
QAR 4264
Fuel Consumption Comparison
0.1 L/KM
0.11 L/KM
Daily Fule Payment
QAR 10
Daily Fule Payment
QAR 11
Weekly Fule Payment
QAR 70
Weekly Fule Payment
QAR 77
Monthly Fule Payment
QAR 310
Monthly Fule Payment
QAR 341
Yearly Fule Payment
QAR 3650
Yearly Fule Payment
QAR 4015
Hide common specs
Car Information
Engine / Motor
180 km/h
210 km/h
/
3460 cc
/
GCC
Dimensions
7 Seater
7
22
/
5 Doors
5 Doors
5181
5115 mm
2053
1980 mm
1925
1920 mm
3071
2850 mm
3479
1004 L
/
235 mm
Fuel Economy
9.7
9.3 Km/L
100
110 L
/
9.3 Km/L
Comfort
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Smart Key
Smart Entry
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Interior
10.2
/
Jet Black/Victory Red perforated leather seating
Fabric
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
Digital
/
Dual Zone
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
Electric
/
✓
/
✓
/
Standard
/
✓
Safety
✓
✓
frontal airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; seat-mounted side-impact airbags for driver and front outboard passenger; driver inboard seat-mounted side-impact airbag; headcurtain airbags for all rows in outboard seating positions3,4
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Infotainment
8
9
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Android LCD
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
/
9
6
BOSE
/
/
✓
/
✓
Transmission
Electronic Limited Slip Differential (Active Reponse 4WD)
/
AT
/
10
/
10AT
Automatic
Chassis & Steering
✓
/
Four-Wheel Drive
Four Wheel Drive
Electronic Limited Slip Differential (Active Reponse 4WD)
/
Exterior
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
/
✓
/
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
LED
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
Engine
6.2 L
3.5 L
Gasoline
Gasoline
420 BHP
409 BHP
624
650 Nm
/
V
/
Twin Turbo
/
4
Technologies
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
✓
/
✓
/
✓
/
✓
