Volvo XC90 2002 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 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: | 163 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 340 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Volvo XC90 engine produces 55 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, whereas torque is 170 NM less than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Volvo XC90 reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 10.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 9.3 l/100km | 11.5 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Volvo XC90 consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that by driving the Volvo XC90 over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Volvo XC90 consumes 2.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 70 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| 930 km on highway | 900 km on highway | ||
| 750 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 560'000 km | 440'000 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 Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 6 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo C30 | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Chrysler 300C, Jeep Commander | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005 3.0 engine: The main issues with this diesel engine stem from the fuel system and its sensitive piezo injectors. These injectors are known for being highly demanding in terms of fuel quality, which can lead to performance ... More about Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.80 m | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.74 m | 1.74 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Volvo XC90 is 5 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 3 cm wider the height of the cars does not differ significantly. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 249 litres | 978 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2404 litres | 1909 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Volvo XC90 has 729 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. This could mean that the Volvo XC90 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 Volvo XC90 (by 495 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.7 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Volvo XC90 is 1.5 metres more than that of the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means Volvo XC90 can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`735 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | |||
| Quality: | low | average | |
| Average price (€): | 4200 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Volvo XC90 has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |