Mitsubishi Outlander 2003 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 3 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 187 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 11.0 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 60 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 730 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 540 km with real consumption | 700 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Grand Cherokee gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 21 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Jeep Grand Cherokee engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.84 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is smaller. Mitsubishi Outlander is 7 cm shorter than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 22 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 1104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1705 litres | 2047 litres | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Outlander has 702 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jeep Grand Cherokee (by 342 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.5 metres less than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`070 | 2`506 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 1800 | 3400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.5/10 | 7.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |