Mitsubishi L 200 2006 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 1998
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
| Gearbox: | Manual/Automatic | Manual/Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 is available only with four wheel (4x4) drive, while Jeep Grand Cherokee can be equipped with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Jeep Grand Cherokee also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
| Engines: | 2.5 (diesel) | 2.7 - 4.7 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 - 168 HP | 140 - 258 HP | |
| Torque: | 314 - 402 NM | 295 - 425 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 14.6 seconds | 8.3 - 14 seconds | |
| Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.6 - 9.5 | 9.7 - 16.5 | |
|
On average, Mitsubishi L 200 equipped with diesel engines consume 2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 5.08 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.85 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.79 m | |
| Mitsubishi L 200 is 47 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 5 cm narrower the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 1104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 2047 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | no data | 11.9 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | ~ 2`870 | ~ 2`447 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | below average | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi L 200 has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |