2004 Chevrolet Blazer vs. 2013 Jeep Wrangler
To start off, 2013 Jeep Wrangler is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Chevrolet Blazer would be higher. At 4,294 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Chevrolet Blazer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Jeep Wrangler (281 HP @ 6400 RPM) has 91 more horse power than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. (190 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Jeep Wrangler should accelerate faster than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2013 Jeep Wrangler weights approximately 256 kg more than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2013 Jeep Wrangler (353 Nm) has 14 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer. (339 Nm). This means 2013 Jeep Wrangler will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Chevrolet Blazer.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Chevrolet Blazer | 2013 Jeep Wrangler | |
Make | Chevrolet | Jeep |
Model | Blazer | Wrangler |
Year Released | 2004 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4294 cc | 3600 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 190 HP | 281 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6400 RPM |
Torque | 339 Nm | 353 Nm |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1684 kg | 1940 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4510 mm | 4684 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1730 mm | 1877 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1660 mm | 1798 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2560 mm | 2946 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 9.6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 13.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 71 L | 85 L |