Toyota Land Cruiser 2013 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2013
| Gearbox: | Manual | 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: | 190 HP | 247 HP | |
| Torque: | 420 NM | 570 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.4 seconds | 8.2 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 57 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 150 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 3.2 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.2 | 7.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 8.7 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 105 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 89 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 1060 km in combined cycle | 1180 km in combined cycle | |
| 1190 km on highway | 1360 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 1020 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Grand Cherokee gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
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 2013 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: | 4.78 m | 4.83 m | |
| Width: | 1.89 m | 1.94 m | |
| Height: | 1.85 m | 1.78 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is smaller, but higher. Toyota Land Cruiser is 5 cm shorter than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 6 cm narrower, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 621 litres | 782 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1934 litres | 1554 litres | |
| Toyota Land Cruiser has 161 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 380 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.2 metres more than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`990 | 2`949 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 27 400 | 25 800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |