UAZ Hunter vs Jeep Wrangler: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.

UAZ · 2003–present
Hunter
- Power
- 94 kW128 PS
- Kerb mass
- -

Jeep · 2018–present
Wrangler IV JL
- Power
- 147 kW200 PS
- Kerb mass
- 2,121 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- City Hunter Length: 4,025 mm vs 4,785 mm; Width: 1,785 mm vs 1,877 mm
In plain words
Jeep Wrangler has more power: 147 kW (200 PS) against 94 kW (128 PS) for UAZ Hunter. Jeep Wrangler is 760 mm longer than UAZ Hunter (4,785 mm vs 4,025 mm). Jeep Wrangler is the older design (from 1987); UAZ Hunter arrived in 2003. On the catalog figures, the UAZ Hunter is the pick for city. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the UAZ Hunter yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
Side view to scale, all cars from the front bumper.
| Hunter | Wrangler IV JL | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,025 mm158.5 in | 4,785 mm188.4 in +760 mm +29.9 in +18.9% |
| Width | 1,785 mm70.3 in | 1,877 mm73.9 in +92 mm +3.6 in +5.2% |
| Height | 2,050 mm80.7 in | 1,801 mm70.9 in −249 mm −9.8 in −12.1% |
| Wheelbase | 2,380 mm93.7 in | 3,007 mm118.4 in +627 mm +24.7 in +26.3% |
| Fits a standard garage? | Yes | Tight |
Difference vs Hunter (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors.
Full specifications
| UAZ Hunter | Jeep Wrangler | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Classic · 94 kW (128 PS) | Wrangler IV JL · Unlimited 2.2 MultiJet · diesel · 147 kW (200 PS) |
| Production years | 2003–present | 2018–present |
| Body | SUV | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | No data | United States |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 94 kW (128 PS) 126 hp | 147 kW (200 PS) 197 hp Better |
| Power, all versions | 82–94 kW (111–128 PS) 110–126 hp | 87–350 kW (118–476 PS) 117–469 hp |
| Torque Why it matters: Torque is the pulling force you feel when accelerating from low revs, towing or climbing hills. | No data | 450 Nm 332 lb-ft |
| Power per tonne | No data | 69 kW/t 84 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Diesel |
| Engine | 2,693 cc 2.7 l | No data |
| Gearbox | manual | automatic |
| Drive | No data | Four-wheel drive (4×4) |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,025 mm 158.5 in | 4,785 mm 188.4 in |
| Width | 1,785 mm 70.3 in | 1,877 mm 73.9 in |
| Height | 2,050 mm 80.7 in | 1,801 mm 70.9 in |
| Wheelbase | 2,380 mm 93.7 in | 3,007 mm 118.4 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | No data | 2,121 kg 4,676 lb |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | No data | 9.4 l/100 km 25.0 mpg US |
| CO₂ | No data | 249 g/km |
| Fuel cost per year | No data | €2,330/year estimated |
| Safety | ||
| Euro NCAP | No data | ★☆☆☆☆ (2018) |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Body, Class.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).
Estimated at 15,000 km a year with fuel at €1.65/l diesel.