Land Rover Range Rover 2009 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.6 Diesel | 3.6 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 272 HP | 286 HP | |
| Torque: | 640 NM | 347 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.2 seconds | 9.1 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 14 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, but torque is 293 NM more than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 0.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.1 | 11.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.4 l/100km | 16.5 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover 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 Range Rover consumes 4.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 105 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 940 km in combined cycle | 810 km in combined cycle | |
| 1140 km on highway | 1050 km on highway | ||
| 840 km with real consumption | 560 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover 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 | 460'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Land Rover Range Rover Sport | Installed on at least 9 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Town & Country | |
| 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. | |||
| Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010 3.6 engine: The variable valve timing regulators, oil pump, water pump, and thermostat are known for their limited lifespan. Another common issue is the clogging of oil channels with wear particles.
After ... More about Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010 3.6 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.97 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 2.03 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.88 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 15 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 10 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 535 litres | 457 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1554 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover has more luggage capacity. Land Rover Range Rover has 78 litres more trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12 meters | 11.3 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.7 metres more than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means Land Rover Range Rover can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | no data | 2`948 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Land Rover Range Rover scores higher in safety tests, but Jeep Grand Cherokee is better rated in child safety tests. The Land Rover Range Rover scores higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 13 800 | 10 600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |