Compare Jeep Cherokee KL vs Chevrolet Captiva
Variants
2.0 272 AT
2.0 272 AWD AT
2.0 Multijet II 140
2.0 Multijet II 140 AWD
2.0 Multijet II 170 AWD AT
2.2 MultiJet II 185 AWD AT
2.2 MultiJet II 195 AT
2.2 MultiJet II 195 AWD AT
2.2 MultiJet II 200 AWD AT
2.2 MultiJet II 200 AWD AT
2.4 177 AT
2.4 177 AWD AT
2.4 180 AT
2.4 180 AWD AT
3.2 271 AT
3.2 272 AWD AT
2.0 VCDi 127
2.0 VCDi 127 AWD
2.0 VCDi 150
2.0 VCDi 150 AWD
2.0 VCDi 150 AWD AT
2.2 VCDi 163
2.2 VCDi 163 AT
2.2 VCDi 163 AWD
2.2 VCDi 184 AT
2.2 VCDi 184 AWD
2.2 VCDi 184 AWD AT
2.4
2.4 AWD
2.4 AWD AT
2.4 Ecotec 167
2.4 Ecotec 167 AT
2.4 Ecotec 167 AWD
2.4 Ecotec 167 AWD AT
3.0 AWD AT
3.2 AWD AT
Sport 2.4 AT
Capacity
Fuel Capacity
60.0 L / 15.9 gal
Passengers
5
5 / 7
Chassis
Brakes | Front
Ventilated discs
Offroad | Approach Angle
18.2 deg
Offroad | Departure Angle
22.7 deg
Power Steering
Electric Steering
Hydraulic Steering
Suspension | Front
MacPherson strut
MacPherson strut
Suspension | Rear
Multi-link
Multi-link
Construction
Body Style
5-door SUV
5-door SUV
Performance
Coefficient Of Drag
0.38
Reviews
Neofiliac score
24%
45%
Pros
- Some offroad capabilities
- Reasonable drivetrain reliability
- Good towing capacity
Cons
- Poor performance
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
- Ugly
- Crossover nonsense
- Disgrace to the Cherokee name
- Very ugly
- Bad 0-100kph time
- High 0.38 drag coefficient
- Stuck with MacPherson struts in the front
Remove
Remove
Add up to 4 products to the comparison using the search bar above
Information on this page is provided on an as-is basis. No warranty on accuracy is implied. This page may contain affiliate links to third-party merchants such as Amazon and eBay. If you make a purchase using the supplied link, we may receive a commission. Neofiliac places the utmost respect for your privacy. We use no cookie whatsoever beyond that needed for the proper functioning of the website.