Land Rover Defender 2002 vs Jeep Wrangler 2002
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 122 HP | 143 HP | |
| Torque: | 300 NM | 215 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.5 seconds | 11.9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Wrangler is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Defender engine produces 21 HP less power than Jeep Wrangler, but torque is 85 NM more than Jeep Wrangler. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Defender reaches 100 km/h speed 5.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 10.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.8 l/100km | 12.4 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Defender is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Land Rover Defender consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Wrangler, which means that by driving the Land Rover Defender over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Defender consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Wrangler. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 76 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 590 km in combined cycle | 730 km in combined cycle | |
| 660 km on highway | 910 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 610 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Wrangler gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Discovery | Installed on at least 7 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Grand Caravan | |
| 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. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Jeep Wrangler 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. | |||
| Jeep Wrangler 2002 2.4 engine: This engine features a thin-walled cast-iron cylinder block, an aluminum cylinder head with dual overhead camshafts, a timing belt system, two balance shafts, hydraulic lifters, a dual-mass flywheel, and a dampened crankshaft pulley. It has received numerous ... More about Jeep Wrangler 2002 2.4 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.88 m | 3.95 m | |
| Width: | 1.79 m | 1.68 m | |
| Height: | 2.08 m | 1.78 m | |
| Land Rover Defender is 7 cm shorter than the Jeep Wrangler, 11 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Defender is 30 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 320 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1045 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 12.3 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Defender is 2.1 metres more than that of the Jeep Wrangler, which means Land Rover Defender can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`000 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | no data | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Defender has
|
Jeep Wrangler has
| |