Jeep Grand Cherokee 1996 vs Land Rover Range Rover 1994
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 2.5 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 116 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 278 NM | 270 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13 seconds | 15.3 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is more dynamic to drive. Jeep Grand Cherokee engine produces 20 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover, but torque is 8 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover. Despite less power, Jeep Grand Cherokee reaches 100 km/h speed 2.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.3 | 10.6 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.2 l/100km | 11.8 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Grand Cherokee consumes 0.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover, which means that by driving the Jeep Grand Cherokee over 15,000 km in a year you can save 45 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Grand Cherokee consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 87 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 840 km in combined cycle | |
| 1010 km on highway | 1010 km on highway | ||
| 850 km with real consumption | 760 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 | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 420'000 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 Land Rover Range Rover engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 8 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Chrysler Voyager, Jeep Cherokee | 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. Jeep Grand Cherokee might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.50 m | 4.71 m | |
| Width: | 1.80 m | 1.89 m | |
| Height: | 1.69 m | 1.82 m | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is smaller. Jeep Grand Cherokee is 21 cm shorter than the Land Rover Range Rover, 9 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Grand Cherokee is 13 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1136 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2254 litres | no data | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Grand Cherokee is 0.5 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover, which means Jeep Grand Cherokee can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`400 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | average | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5000 | 4200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 8.4/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
|
Land Rover Range Rover has
| |