1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager vs. 2010 Jaguar XF
To start off, 2010 Jaguar XF is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager would be higher. At 3,301 cc (6 cylinders), 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jaguar XF (237 HP) has 80 more horse power than 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager. (157 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jaguar XF should accelerate faster than 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager.
Because 2010 Jaguar XF is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Jaguar XF. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2010 Jaguar XF (500 Nm) has 225 more torque (in Nm) than 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager. (275 Nm). This means 2010 Jaguar XF will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager.
Compare all specifications:
1996 Chrysler Grand Voyager | 2010 Jaguar XF | |
Make | Chrysler | Jaguar |
Model | Grand Voyager | XF |
Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
Body Type | Minivan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3301 cc | 3000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 157 HP | 237 HP |
Torque | 275 Nm | 500 Nm |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed shiftable automatic |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4961 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1960 mm | 1877 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1800 mm | 1461 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2908 mm |