Land Rover Range Rover 2002 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.9 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 390 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.6 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 41 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 120 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 4.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 11.3 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 11.5 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover 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 Range Rover could require 165 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 880 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 1060 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 810 km with real consumption | 670 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 | 440'000 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 Range Rover engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 4 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler 300C, Jeep Commander | |
| 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 2005 3.0 engine: The main issues with this diesel engine stem from the fuel system and its sensitive piezo injectors. These injectors are known for being highly demanding in terms of fuel quality, which can lead to performance ... More about Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.95 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.96 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 20 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 978 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1909 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.4 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): | 3`500 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 5800 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |