Land Rover Range Rover 1994 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 1998
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.0 Petrol | 4.0 Petrol | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 198 HP | |
| Torque: | 320 NM | 312 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.5 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover engine produces 8 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, but torque is 8 NM more than Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 16.3 | 13.1 | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Land Rover Range Rover consumes 3.2 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 480 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 100 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 610 km in combined cycle | 590 km in combined cycle | |
| 790 km on highway | 690 km on highway | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.71 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.82 m | 1.76 m | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover is larger. Land Rover Range Rover is 10 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 5 cm wider, while the height of Land Rover Range Rover is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2047 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.1 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover is 0.8 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`427 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 4000 | 3400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.4/10 | 7.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |