Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific diesel engine choice they offer. The first one has a Land Rover-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 5-cylinder, 10-valves 137hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 140hp engine designed by VM Motori.

The fact that the Jeep got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the British car offers a considerable difference of 17% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Jeep does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Land Rover with an average rating of 3.8, and models under the Jeep badge with 4.0 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Discovery as average reliability-wise, and Cherokee is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the British car rank it on average as 3.3, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.2 out of 5.

Jeep is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.8 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 164 kilometers per hour, 7km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 9.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (31 mpg), in combined cycle.

Jeep appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Jeep being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Jeep. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.