2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee vs. 2013 Mini Countryman
To start off, 2013 Mini Countryman is newer by 8 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee would be higher.
Because 2013 Mini Countryman is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Mini Countryman will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee (394 Nm) has 113 more torque (in Nm) than 2013 Mini Countryman. (281 Nm). This means 2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2013 Mini Countryman.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee | 2013 Mini Countryman | |
Make | Jeep | Mini |
Model | Grand Cherokee | Countryman |
Year Released | 2005 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Crossover |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 230 HP | 0 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 6000 RPM |
Torque | 394 Nm | 281 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 93 mm | 77 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 87 mm | 85 mm |
Drive Type | Rear | AWD |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4750 mm | 4133 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1870 mm | 1996 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1549 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2595 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 6.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 9.4 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 47 L |