Mitsubishi Pajero 1994 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2001
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 2.7 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 163 HP | |
| Torque: | 292 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 17.3 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Pajero engine produces 38 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 108 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Pajero reaches 100 km/h speed 6.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.2 | 9.7 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 13.8 l/100km | 11.0 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Grand Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 2.5 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Pajero could require 375 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Mitsubishi Pajero consumes 2.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 92 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 750 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 940 km on highway | 960 km on highway | ||
| 660 km with real consumption | 700 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) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 520'000 km | 480'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 13 years | 3 years | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Pajero 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: | 4.70 m | 4.61 m | |
| Width: | 1.70 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.88 m | 1.84 m | |
| Mitsubishi Pajero is 9 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 14 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Pajero is 4 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 1080 litres | 1104 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2050 litres | 2047 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Mitsubishi Pajero has 24 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. This could mean that the Mitsubishi Pajero uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Mitsubishi Pajero (by 3 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Pajero is 0.1 metres less than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`300 | 2`506 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | Jeep Grand Cherokee has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Pajero has serious deffects in 105 percent more cases than Jeep Grand Cherokee, so Jeep Grand Cherokee quality is probably significantly better | ||
| Average price (€): | 3600 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Pajero has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |