2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vs. 2003 Mazda 6
To start off, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee (195 HP @ 3800 RPM) has 77 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (118 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 6. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 480 kg more than 2003 Mazda 6. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 147 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 6. (165 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee | 2003 Mazda 6 | |
Make | Jeep | Mazda |
Model | Grand Cherokee | 6 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2003 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3966 cc | 1798 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 195 HP | 118 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 5500 RPM |
Torque | 312 Nm | 165 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 8.8:1 | 11.0:1 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1800 kg | 1320 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4610 mm | 4690 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2650 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 8.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 64 L |