Nissan X-Trail 2003 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2001
| Gearbox: | Manual | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.2 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 314 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.5 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Nissan X-Trail engine produces 27 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 86 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Nissan X-Trail reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 7.2 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 8.0 l/100km | 11.0 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan X-Trail is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan X-Trail consumes 2.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that by driving the Nissan X-Trail over 15,000 km in a year you can save 375 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan X-Trail consumes 3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 830 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 700 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: | 4x4 - AWD (all-wheel-drive) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 480'000 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 Jeep Grand Cherokee engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 6 years | 3 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Nissan Almera, Nissan Primera, Nissan Almera Tino | Used only for this car | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Nissan X-Trail might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Jeep Grand Cherokee engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.51 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.68 m | 1.84 m | |
|
Nissan X-Trail is smaller. Nissan X-Trail is 10 cm shorter than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 8 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan X-Trail is 16 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 410 litres | 1104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1841 litres | 2047 litres | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has more luggage space. Nissan X-Trail has 694 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jeep Grand Cherokee (by 206 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan X-Trail is 1.3 metres less than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means Nissan X-Trail can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 2`050 kg | 2`506 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`525 kg | 1`980 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 525 kg | 526 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | above average | above average | |
| Nissan X-Trail has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Jeep Grand Cherokee has serious deffects in 20 percent more cases than Nissan X-Trail, so Nissan X-Trail quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 2000 | 3200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.0/10 | 7.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan X-Trail has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |