2009 Ford Escape vs. 2013 Jaguar XJ
To start off, 2013 Jaguar XJ is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Ford Escape. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Ford Escape would be higher. At 2,995 cc (4 cylinders), 2013 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2013 Jaguar XJ (335 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 166 more horse power than 2009 Ford Escape. (169 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 2009 Ford Escape.
Because 2013 Jaguar XJ is all wheel drive (AWD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Ford Escape. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2013 Jaguar XJ 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, 2013 Jaguar XJ (450 Nm @ 5000 RPM) has 279 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Ford Escape. (171 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2013 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Ford Escape.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Ford Escape | 2013 Jaguar XJ | |
Make | Ford | Jaguar |
Model | Escape | XJ |
Year Released | 2009 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2486 cc | 2995 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 169 HP | 335 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 171 Nm | 450 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Front | AWD |
Transmission Type | Manual | CVT |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 2105 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.4 L/100km | 7.6 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 11.7 L/100km |