1962 Jeep CJ5 vs. 2013 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2013 Jaguar XF is newer by 51 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Jeep CJ5. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Jeep CJ5 would be higher. At 2,995 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Jaguar XF is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Jaguar XF (335 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 276 more horse power than 1962 Jeep CJ5. (59 HP @ 3600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 1962 Jeep CJ5. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Jaguar XF weights approximately 739 kg more than 1962 Jeep CJ5. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2013 Jaguar XF (340 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 195 more torque (in Nm) than 1962 Jeep CJ5. (145 Nm @ 3600 RPM). This means 2013 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1962 Jeep CJ5.
Compare all specifications:
1962 Jeep CJ5 | 2013 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Jeep | Jaguar |
Model | CJ5 | XF |
Year Released | 1962 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2199 cc | 2995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 59 HP | 335 HP |
Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 145 Nm | 340 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid |
Drive Type | 4WD | AWD |
Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
Vehicle Weight | 1030 kg | 1769 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3520 mm | 4961 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 2053 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1740 mm | 1460 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2060 mm | 2909 mm |