1985 Jeep Cj7 Renegade ,plow , 4 Speed Manual on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2020 Land Rover Defender vs. 2020 Jeep Wrangler: How they compare on paper

For ages, the Jeep Wrangler has had the serious off-road SUV market in America all to itself, especially when it comes to two-door variants. But competition is coming, and the first on its way is the 2020 Land Rover Defender, which was just revealed at the Frankfurt Motor Show. Each packages retro looks and impressive off-road capability, but does one have an advantage? We decided to take a look into each SUV's specifications and compare them on their engines, drivetrains, interior space and towing among other things, to see how they stack up. Since both SUVs are offered in two-door and four-door versions, we've made sure to feature both versions. You can find all the vital stats in the chart below, followed by more in-depth analysis. Engines and drivetrains The Land Rover is the clear high-performance option of these two SUVs. Its base turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder, offered only in the four-door Defender 110, is more powerful than either of the gas engines offered on the Jeep Wrangler. The Wrangler's four-cylinder matches it on torque, at least. The optional turbocharged 3.0-liter inline-six in the Defender makes over 100 more horsepower and pound-feet of torque than either Jeep gas engine. But if you're looking for diesel propulsion, along with its associated torque and fuel economy, the Wrangler will be your only option. Final specs haven't been released, but in the Ram 1500, the same engine makes 260 horsepower and 480 pound-feet of torque. Fuel economy hasn't been announced for the Land Rover or the diesel Wrangler. But if fuel economy is a concern, the four-cylinder Wrangler is the most frugal of the SUVs we have numbers on. As for transmissions, the Wrangler is your only choice if you have to have a manual. It's available on both the two-door and four-door models, but only with the V6 engine. If you don't mind an automatic transmission, both SUVs come with variations on the ZF eight-speed auto. Getting the power to the wheels is another area where these two SUVs diverge. The Jeep is very traditional with a standard selectable four-wheel-drive system with two-wheel drive, and low- and high-range four-wheel drive modes. On the Sahara, there's an available full-time four-wheel drive mode, but the other modes are still available. On the Land Rover, you get full-time four-wheel drive, the same kind used on the Land Rover Range Rover.

Jeep beefs up the Wrangler Rubicon with 2017 Recon Edition hardware

The Wrangler Rubicon Hard Rock is dead. Don't worry; the 2017 Rubicon Recon is heading to showrooms soon to take its place, and judging by what it's packing you'll hardly miss the Hard Rock. Essentially, this is a Rubicon with some beefed-up bits underneath and a few special cosmetic tweaks, a bit like the outgoing Hard Rock. Up front, there's a stronger Dana 44 with strengthened tubes and heavy-duty end forgings. Likewise, the front and rear differentials get stronger cast covers than the Hard Rock's stamped ones. The ratios are the same, with 4.10:1 front and rear ratios, Tru-Lok locking diffs, and a Rock-Trac transfer case. There's also a half-inch lift. Cosmetically, there are new 17-inch wheels exclusive to the Recon equipped with 32-inch BF Goodrich KM tires, and the rock rails have been reshaped to allow owners to fit 35-inch tires without interference. The Recon also adds red seatbelts and stitching, something you haven't been able to get in a Wrangler before, a Jeep rep told us. If that's what you were waiting for to get into a Wrangler Rubicon, well, there you go. There's also the special-edition farkles you'd expect: a dashboard plaque the fender badge, and a unique gauge cluster treatment. The two-door Recon will start at $40,140 and the four door at $43,940 – that's compared to the base Rubicon, which starts at $34,190 in two-door form. So, the Recon represents a nearly $6,000 premium over the base Rubicon and a $1,150 premium over the outgoing Hard Rock. It'll be available in dealers at the end of this month. Related Video:

Trying the new Compass and other Jeeps on for size

If any brand has license to sell several like-sized SUVs, it's Jeep, which invented the concept in the first place. Yet, with the Cherokee, Renegade, and the redesigned 2017 Jeep Compass revealed at the LA Auto Show, just how like-sized is this trio of compact SUVs? Well, as it turns out, that answer is more complicated than just looking at various spreadsheets of specifications. After the cover was pulled off the new Compass, I managed to explore each back-to-back-to-back to see how their back seats and cargo areas compare. Perhaps obviously, the Renegade is the smallest of the trio no matter how you look it. Well, it actually has the most headroom, but rear legroom is cramped (a 6-footer can't sit behind another 6-footer) and it's quite obvious the cargo area is about nine cubic feet smaller with the rear seats raised. However, the Cherokee and Compass are surprisingly similar both on paper and in person – and even more surprisingly, the newer, smaller-on-the-outside Compass is actually a bit more spacious despite being nine inches shorter in overall length. View 14 Photos When seated in back, my knees were just touching the driver seat when it was motored most of the way back to accommodate my 6-foot-3 frame. However, the Cherokee's slightly chunkier seatback meant the Compass actually had a bit more rear legroom. I then set the passenger seat to a more average distance and again, the Compass had a slight advantage. The Cherokee did have a bit more under-thigh support, however, which indicates the seat is mounted a bit higher. But that creates a problem, as headroom is more significantly affected when the panoramic sunroof is specified. In the Cherokee, my head was into the sunroof cavity and resting against its rigid surround. In the Compass, there was just enough clearance. It should be a difference, both in terms of headroom and perceived roominess that those of average height should notice. As for their cargo areas, the Compass' is larger and more useable. With the rear seats raised, it has 27.2 cubic feet versus the Cherokee's 24.6. You can scoot its sliding seat forward to nearly equal the Compass, but of course doing so reduces its rear legroom. The main reason is width. The Cherokee is noticeably narrow and it gets worse when equipped with the optional subwoofer. In terms of maximum cargo volume with the rear seats lowered, the Compass has 59.8 cubic feet to the Cherokee's 54.9.