2002 Jeep Wrangler vs. 2010 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2010 Suzuki Equator is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2002 Jeep Wrangler. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2002 Jeep Wrangler would be higher. At 3,960 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Jeep Wrangler is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Suzuki Equator (152 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 11 more horse power than 2002 Jeep Wrangler. (141 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Suzuki Equator should accelerate faster than 2002 Jeep Wrangler.
Because 2010 Suzuki Equator 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 Suzuki Equator. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Jeep Wrangler, 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, 2002 Jeep Wrangler (319 Nm) has 87 more torque (in Nm) than 2010 Suzuki Equator. (232 Nm). This means 2002 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2010 Suzuki Equator.
Compare all specifications:
| 2002 Jeep Wrangler | 2010 Suzuki Equator | |
| Make | Jeep | Suzuki |
| Model | Wrangler | Equator |
| Year Released | 2002 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3960 cc | 2488 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 141 HP | 152 HP |
| Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 319 Nm | 232 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Manual | Manual |
| Vehicle Length | 3950 mm | 5250 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1750 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2380 mm | 3200 mm |
