Land Rover Defender 1992 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 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: | 113 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 265 NM | 278 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 18.6 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Defender engine produces 3 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 13 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Defender reaches 100 km/h speed 5.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.4 | 10.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Defender consumes 1.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Land Rover Defender could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Defender consumes 1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 87 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 700 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 710 km with real consumption | 850 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 | 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 Land Rover Defender engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, Jeep Cherokee | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Grand Cherokee 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: | 4.60 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 2.04 m | 1.69 m | |
| Land Rover Defender is 10 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Land Rover Defender is 35 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1136 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2254 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Defender is 0.2 metres more than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 6600 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Defender has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |