The horsepower is a parameter that majority of car fans attach the greatest attention to. In this comparison, it is the Jeep Cherokee V 3.2 V6 Active Drive Lock 272HP automatic 4x4, that has by 127 % more horsepower than the Suzuki SX4 II 1.6 VVT 120HP manual, which makes this vehicle really better in terms of top speed. With more horsepower the Jeep should also give considerably more flexiblility in specific speeds.
When you step on the gas pedal and you start accelerating fast, that’s torque you’re feeling. And you will experience it better driving the Jeep Cherokee V as it has 103 percent more torque when compared to the Suzuki SX4 II. Compared vehicles differ so much that only riding the Jeep you will experience a pleasurable sensations of getting pinned back in the seat when it begins to accelerate.
Maximal torque RPM
A greater range and a lower number of rotations at which the highest torque is delivered has an impact on an engine’s efficiency and flexibility. However, in order to have a full perspective on a car’s engine performance, it is recommended to see a torque performance graph.
The width of the car influences on passanger's inner room as well as stability of driving. The Jeep Cherokee V is 100 millimeters wider when compared to the Suzuki SX4 II. It is often clearly perceptible by driver and passenger in front, who have more room for their elbows.
The Suzuki SX4 II 1.6 VVT 120HP manual gives way to the Jeep Cherokee V in the category of fuel tank capacity. The Jeep Cherokee V 3.2 V6 Active Drive Lock 272HP automatic 4x4 is able to store by 22 % more fuel than its contender.
The Jeep Cherokee V has 103 millimeters longer wheelbase when compared to Suzuki SX4 II. Therefore the Jeep Cherokee V is safer and has a better stability. What is more, longer wheelbase has impact on convenient and more comfortable traveling.
Ground clearance is a vital factor in many important characteristics of a car. It is the most important for SUV vehicles though all vehicles appreciate the higher suspension. The Jeep Cherokee V has 29 mm larger clearance in relation to the Suzuki SX4 II 1.6 VVT 120HP manual. In addition to easier mobility in rough terrain, the Jeep Cherokee V will also be easier to overcome city obstacles like high kerbstones, for example.
The Jeep Cherokee V 3.2 V6 Active Drive Lock 272HP automatic 4x4 has 1,653 cc larger engine size than the Suzuki SX4 II. Such a substantial difference makes that comparision of this values have little sense. The Suzuki SX4 II would be the right choice for those who apreciate lower fuel consumption and vehicle operating costs at the expense of slower driving, however, owners the Jeep Cherokee V would benefit from better power, durability, smoothness of the car and consequently more fun from driving.
The Jeep Cherokee V is longer in comparison to the Suzuki SX4 II by 1,326 millimeters and it offers to passengers much more space for legs inside the car as well as it has more capable trunk. In the „compact SUV” class, to which the car of brand Jeep is assigned, the average length amouts to 4,341 millimeters and is by 1,280 mm greater than the length of the Jeep Cherokee V 3.2 V6 Active Drive Lock 272HP automatic 4x4.
A Vee engine is a
improved construction of a
engine with cylinders arranged in a straight
which as far as we are concerned is
wiser to choose one. Engine of V characteristic
installed inside a the Jeep Cherokee V
produces more torque at lower RPM ranges due to
the power stroke coming from 2 sides of the crankshaft. This type of
engime can contain high numbers of
cylinders without a need of much extending its dimensions. A
Smooth engine work and nicer sound is
to a V engine’s advantage.
Model release date
Because of the fact that the Suzuki SX4 II's production began only 1 year before the Jeep Cherokee V 3.2 V6 Active Drive Lock 272HP automatic 4x4, the gap between technology applied in both cars is not really huge, however, the Jeep may feature a bit more new solutions used in it.
For a smooth travelling in the city, it is good to have an automatic however the type of transmisison may have a considerable effect on fuel efficiency. Automatics may use somewhere from 5 to 10% more than manuals.