Land Rover Range Rover 1994 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 1996
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 116 HP | |
| Torque: | 270 NM | 278 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 15.3 seconds | 13 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 20 HP more power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, but torque is 8 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.6 | 10.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 10.2 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover consumes 0.3 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 45 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 90 litres | 87 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 760 km with real consumption | 850 km with real consumption | ||
| 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 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 Range Rover engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 8 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.80 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.69 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 21 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 9 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 13 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1136 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2254 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.5 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`400 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 4800 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |