2005 Jaguar XJ vs. 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2005 Jaguar XJ is newer by 2 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 4,195 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Jaguar XJ (390 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 195 more horse power than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Jaguar XJ 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 29 kg more than 2005 Jaguar XJ.
Let's talk about torque, 2005 Jaguar XJ (525 Nm) has 213 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm). This means 2005 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Jaguar XJ | 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
Make | Jaguar | Jeep |
Model | XJ | Grand Cherokee |
Year Released | 2005 | 2003 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4195 cc | 3966 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 390 HP | 195 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 3800 RPM |
Torque | 525 Nm | 312 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 86.1 mm | 99 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 90 mm | 87 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.1:1 | 8.8:1 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1735 kg | 1764 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 4610 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2920 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 84 L | 78 L |