Toyota Land Cruiser 2009 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2010
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 173 HP | 241 HP | |
| Torque: | 410 NM | 550 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.7 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 68 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 140 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 3.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.1 | 8.3 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 10.3 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that by driving the Toyota Land Cruiser over 15,000 km in a year you can save 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 93 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1070 km in combined cycle | 1120 km in combined cycle | |
| 1290 km on highway | 1290 km on highway | ||
| 730 km with real consumption | 900 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) | |
| Ground clearance: | 220 mm (8.7 inches) | 218 mm (8.6 inches) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 420'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 25 years | 15 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on Toyota Hilux | Used also on Chrysler 300C | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Land Cruiser 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. | |||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 2009 3.0 engine: The engine tends to be noisy and vibrate.
Nozzle life is limited when using poor quality fuel.
Increased oil consumption tends to occur over time. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.76 m | 4.82 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is smaller, but higher. Toyota Land Cruiser is 6 cm shorter than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 11 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 104 litres | 780 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1930 litres | 1554 litres | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser has 676 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Toyota Land Cruiser (by 376 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`990 | 2`949 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 18 200 | 9800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |