Jeep Wrangler 2007 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 190 HP | |
| Torque: | 410 NM | 440 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | n/a seconds | 12.7 seconds | |
| Jeep Wrangler engine produces 13 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, whereas torque is 30 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 11.0 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Jeep Wrangler consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means that by driving the Jeep Wrangler over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Jeep Wrangler consumes 0.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 79 litres | 82 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km with real consumption | 740 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 330'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Jeep Wrangler engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 6 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Nitro | Used also on Land Rover Discovery | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Wrangler might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.75 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.88 m | 1.93 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Jeep Wrangler is smaller, but slightly higher. Jeep Wrangler is 4 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Wrangler is 2 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2322 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.25 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Wrangler is 0.65 metres more than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means Jeep Wrangler can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`505 | no data | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 000 | 6600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Wrangler has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
| |