2002 Chevrolet Camaro vs. 2013 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2013 Jaguar XJ is newer by 11 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Chevrolet Camaro. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Chevrolet Camaro would be higher. At 5,700 cc (8 cylinders), 2002 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2002 Chevrolet Camaro weights approximately 305 kg more than 2013 Jaguar XJ.
Because 2013 Jaguar XJ is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2002 Chevrolet Camaro. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XJ will offer significantly more control. 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, 2002 Chevrolet Camaro (461 Nm) has 11 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Jaguar XJ. (450 Nm). This means 2002 Chevrolet Camaro will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Jaguar XJ.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Chevrolet Camaro | 2013 Jaguar XJ | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Jaguar |
| Model | Camaro | XJ |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2013 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5700 cc | 2995 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 335 HP |
| Torque | 461 Nm | 450 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
| Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2100 kg | 1795 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4920 mm | 5127 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 2105 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1310 mm | 1456 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 3032 mm |
