Jeep Cherokee 2002 vs Mitsubishi L 200 1996
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 100 HP | |
| Torque: | 360 NM | 240 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Jeep Cherokee engine produces 50 HP more power than Mitsubishi L 200, whereas torque is 120 NM more than Mitsubishi L 200. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.9 | no data | |
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 75 litres | |
| 640 km with real consumption | 720 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 7 years | 30 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager | Used also on Mitsubishi Pajero | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Jeep 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: | 4.44 m | 4.50 m | |
| Width: | 1.82 m | 1.66 m | |
| Height: | 1.87 m | 1.57 m | |
| Jeep Cherokee is 6 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi L 200, 17 cm wider, while the height of Jeep Cherokee is 30 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 820 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1950 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.9 meters | no data | |
| Gross weight: | 2`540 kg | 2`835 kg | |
| Net weight: | 1`845 kg | 1`730 kg | |
| Load capacity: | 695 kg | 1`105 kg | |
| Jeep Cherokee load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 59 procentiem less than Mitsubishi L 200. Therefore, Mitsubishi L 200 is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads. | |||
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 7000 | 4400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Cherokee has
|
Mitsubishi L 200 has
| |