2004 Nissan 350Z vs. 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2004 Nissan 350Z is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee would be higher. At 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Nissan 350Z (287 HP @ 3600 RPM) has 92 more horse power than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2004 Nissan 350Z should accelerate faster than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 301 kg more than 2004 Nissan 350Z.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Nissan 350Z (373 Nm) has 61 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm). This means 2004 Nissan 350Z will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Nissan 350Z | 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
Make | Nissan | Jeep |
Model | 350Z | Grand Cherokee |
Year Released | 2004 | 2003 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3491 cc | 3966 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 287 HP | 195 HP |
Engine RPM | 3600 RPM | 3800 RPM |
Torque | 373 Nm | 312 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 96 mm | 99 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 81 mm | 87 mm |
Number of Seats | 2 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1463 kg | 1764 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4310 mm | 4610 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.1 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 78 L |