2009 Jeep Cherokee vs. 2006 Land Rover LR3
To start off, 2009 Jeep Cherokee is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Land Rover LR3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Land Rover LR3 would be higher. At 4,015 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Land Rover LR3 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2006 Land Rover LR3 (216 HP @ 4500 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 2009 Jeep Cherokee. (175 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2006 Land Rover LR3 should accelerate faster than 2009 Jeep Cherokee.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2009 Jeep Cherokee (460 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 95 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Land Rover LR3. (365 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Jeep Cherokee will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Land Rover LR3.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Jeep Cherokee | 2006 Land Rover LR3 | |
Make | Jeep | Land Rover |
Model | Cherokee | LR3 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2768 cc | 4015 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 175 HP | 216 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Torque | 460 Nm | 365 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 4860 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1920 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1800 mm | 1900 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2700 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.4 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 86 L |