Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 241 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 550 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 4 HP more power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 1.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 0.9 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 Range Rover Sport could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 84 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 900 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Grand Cherokee gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Ground clearance: | 227 mm (8.9 inches) | 218 mm (8.6 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 17 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | Used also on Chrysler 300C | |
| 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 Sport might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.78 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 3 cm shorter than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 6 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 958 litres | 780 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 1554 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, The Jeep Grand Cherokee may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 459 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.3 metres more than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`175 kg | 2`949 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 9200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |