2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vs. 2009 Land Rover LR2
To start off, 2009 Land Rover LR2 is newer by 5 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, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (231 HP @ 6300 RPM) has 36 more horse power than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Land Rover LR2 should accelerate faster than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Land Rover LR2 (317 Nm @ 3200 RPM) has 5 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Land Rover LR2 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 | 2009 Land Rover LR2 | |
Make | Jeep | Land Rover |
Model | Grand Cherokee | LR2 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2009 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3966 cc | 3192 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 195 HP | 231 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 6300 RPM |
Torque | 312 Nm | 317 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 3200 RPM |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4610 mm | 4500 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1840 mm | 1910 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1750 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2670 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 70 L |