Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 2-door cabriolet body style within the same 'Sports car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (front for the Chrysler and rear in the case of the Jaguar). The first one has a Mercedes Benz-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 18-valves 218hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 8-cylinder, 32-valves 300hp engine designed by Jaguar.

Unfortunatelly, neither of the two vehicles was submitted to the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) testing. This makes it virtually impossible for me to pick one over the other and I'm generally against buying such cars as the safety should really always come first. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the sports car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the British car offers a considerable difference of 28% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Jaguar does have a slight advantage, at least on all of the models level. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Chrysler with an average rating of 4.4, and models under the Jaguar badge with 4.1 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the American car rank it on average as 4.5, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 3.0 out of 5.

Chrysler is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 242 kilometers per hour, 8km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the American car, averaging around 10.4 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (27 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 10% difference compared to the British car.

Chrysler 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 my opinion, everything taken into account, the British car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. From there things take a different direction, with Chrysler offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the Chrysler. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.