Jeep Wrangler 2007 vs Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2015
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.0 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: | 177 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 410 NM | 380 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 10 seconds | |
| Jeep Wrangler engine produces 27 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, whereas torque is 30 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. Despite the higher power, Jeep Wrangler reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 5.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 7.9 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Evoque is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Wrangler consumes 4.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Wrangler could require 690 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Wrangler consumes 3.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 57 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 1110 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 1260 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 720 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 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: | 420'000 km | 350'000 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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Nitro | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Jaguar XF, Land Rover Discovery Sport, Jaguar XE | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover Evoque might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2015 2.0 engine: This engine is known for its relatively limited lifespan. In early production models, balance shaft bearings wore out quickly and started making noise. The chain-driven timing system, located on the flywheel ... More about Land Rover Range Rover Evoque 2015 2.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.22 m | 4.37 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.99 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.66 m | |
|
Jeep Wrangler is smaller, but higher. Jeep Wrangler is 15 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, 11 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Wrangler is 14 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 141 litres | 575 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has more luggage space. Jeep Wrangler has 434 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Wrangler is 0.9 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Evoque, which means Jeep Wrangler can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`500 | 2`350 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 22 800 | 22 200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Wrangler has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque has
| |