2009 Cadillac BLS vs. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2009 Cadillac BLS 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 Cadillac BLS (252 HP @ 5500 RPM) has 57 more horse power than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac BLS 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 129 kg more than 2009 Cadillac BLS.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Cadillac BLS (365 Nm @ 1800 RPM) has 53 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Cadillac BLS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Cadillac BLS | 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
Make | Cadillac | Jeep |
Model | BLS | Grand Cherokee |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2792 cc | 3966 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 252 HP | 195 HP |
Engine RPM | 5500 RPM | 3800 RPM |
Torque | 365 Nm | 312 Nm |
Torque RPM | 1800 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Engine Bore Size | 89.1 mm | 99 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 74.8 mm | 87 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 8.8:1 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1764 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4610 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 78 L |