2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vs. 2008 Nissan 350Z
To start off, 2008 Nissan 350Z is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee would be higher. At 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Nissan 350Z (306 HP @ 6800 RPM) has 111 more horse power than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Nissan 350Z should accelerate faster than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 652 kg more than 2008 Nissan 350Z.
Let's talk about torque, 2008 Nissan 350Z (363 Nm @ 4800 RPM) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2008 Nissan 350Z will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee | 2008 Nissan 350Z | |
Make | Jeep | Nissan |
Model | Grand Cherokee | 350Z |
Year Released | 2004 | 2008 |
Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3966 cc | 3497 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 195 HP | 306 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 6800 RPM |
Torque | 312 Nm | 363 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 4800 RPM |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 2 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1764 kg | 1112 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4610 mm | 4320 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1820 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1330 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2660 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 76 L |