Holden Jackaroo

Jackaroo specs by version: what actually differs

All three share AWD, Front, longitudinal engines, Independent, spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front brakes, Disc ventilated rear brakes, 210 mm ground clearance, and an 85 L tank. The split is engine and gearbox.

All three share AWD, Front, longitudinal engines, Independent, spring suspension front and rear, Ventilated disc front brakes, Disc ventilated rear brakes, 210 mm ground clearance, and an 85 L tank. The split is engine and gearbox.

3.2 MT and 3.2 AT are the same 3165 cc Gasoline unit (6 cylinders, V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, Distributed injection (multi-point), fuel 95). They are not two engines. 3.1 MT is the only Diesel: 3059 cc, 4 Inline cylinders, 2 valves per cylinder, Turbo.

Engine: 63 hp more on the 3.2, same 260 Nm earlier on the 3.1

3.2 MT and 3.2 AT make 177 hp versus 114 hp on 3.1 MT: +63 hp, or about 55% more peak power. Displacement only rises 106 cc (3165 vs 3059), so the petrol versions are not “bigger by a litre”; they are denser. Specific output:

• 3.1 MT: 114 hp / 3.059 L ≈ 37.3 hp per litre
• 3.2 MT / 3.2 AT: 177 hp / 3.165 L ≈ 55.9 hp per litre

That is about +18.6 hp per litre on the Gasoline 6-cylinder.

Peak torque is 260 Nm on all three. The buying difference is where it arrives: 2000 rpm on 3.1 MT, 3750 rpm on 3.2 MT and 3.2 AT. The Diesel reaches the same 260 Nm 1750 rpm earlier. Power peak is 3600 rpm (3.1 MT) versus 5200 rpm (both 3.2 versions). If the use case is low-rpm pull with AWD, the catalogue points at 3.1 MT. If the use case is higher peak power, both 3.2 versions.

Boost: only 3.1 MT has Turbo. 3.2 MT and 3.2 AT list No. Fuel: Diesel vs 95. Valves: 2 per cylinder on 3.1 MT, 4 on the 3.2 pair.

Performance and mpg: 0–100, top speed, consumption

0–100 km/h

• 3.1 MT: 11.3 s
• 3.2 MT: 11.5 s
• 3.2 AT: not measured

The Diesel 3.1 MT is 0.2 s quicker to 100 km/h than the 63 hp stronger 3.2 MT. That is not a typing error in this article: 11.3 versus 11.5 is the given pair. Combined with 260 Nm at 2000 rpm and Turbo, the 3.1 MT uses its torque earlier. 3.2 AT acceleration is not measured, so it cannot be ranked on 0–100 against the manuals.

Top speed

• 3.1 MT: 150 km/h
• 3.2 MT: 170 km/h (+20 km/h)
• 3.2 AT: not measured

If the ranking is peak speed, 3.2 MT is the measured leader. 3.2 AT has no measured top speed in this set.

Fuel consumption / mpg

City, highway, and combined consumption are not measured for 3.1 MT, 3.2 MT, and 3.2 AT. CO2 and eco class are not measured on all three. A mpg comparison between Diesel and Gasoline cannot be made from these figures. Tank size does not break the tie: 85 L on every version.

Dimensions, weight, and ground clearance

Ground clearance is 210 mm on 3.1 MT, 3.2 MT, and 3.2 AT. Wheel sizes are not measured on all three. Gross weight is not measured on all three.

Kerb weight:

• 3.1 MT: 1985 kg
• 3.2 MT: 1795 kg
• 3.2 AT: not measured

3.1 MT is 190 kg heavier than 3.2 MT. Mass per horsepower (kerb / hp):

• 3.1 MT: 1985 / 114 ≈ 17.4 kg/hp
• 3.2 MT: 1795 / 177 ≈ 10.1 kg/hp

3.2 MT carries about 7.3 kg less per horsepower. That does not reverse the 0–100 result above: 3.1 MT is still 0.2 s quicker in the measured sprint, while 3.2 MT is 190 kg lighter and 20 km/h faster at the top. 3.2 AT kerb weight is not measured, so kg/hp cannot be calculated for the automatic.

Body type does not choose a version: all are SUV 5-doors in the same generation window 1998–2003.

Reliability and problems: what this catalogue does and does not measure

This dataset has no failure rates, recalls, or repair lists. Reliability cannot be scored from these rows. What is measured and relevant to durability of the choice:

• 3.1 MT is the only Turbo Diesel; the 3.2 pair is No boost Gasoline.
• Gearbox: Manual 5 on 3.1 MT and 3.2 MT; Automatic 4 on 3.2 AT only.
• Drive, suspension, and brakes are the same labels on all three (AWD; Independent, spring; Ventilated disc / Disc ventilated).

If the concern is “which generation fixed X,” there is only 1 generation here — nothing later in this model key to compare.

Which version to choose

Choose 3.1 MT if the numbers that matter are early torque and the measured sprint. It is the only Diesel Turbo, 260 Nm at 2000 rpm, 11.3 s to 100 km/h (fastest measured 0–100), 5-speed Manual, AWD. Trade-offs that are in the data: 114 hp (lowest), 150 km/h top speed (lowest measured), 1985 kg kerb (heaviest measured), 17.4 kg/hp. Consumption not measured.

Choose 3.2 MT if the numbers that matter are peak power, lighter kerb, and higher measured top speed. 177 hp, 55.9 hp/L, 1795 kg, 10.1 kg/hp, 170 km/h, still 5-speed Manual and AWD, same 260 Nm but at 3750 rpm. Versus 3.1 MT you give up 0.2 s on 0–100 and the Turbo Diesel torque curve; you gain 63 hp, 190 kg less kerb, 20 km/h top speed. Fuel is 95. Consumption not measured.

Choose 3.2 AT only if a 4-speed Automatic is the requirement. Engine matches 3.2 MT exactly: 177 hp, 260 Nm at 3750 rpm, 3165 cc, Gasoline, 6 V-shaped, No boost. What you cannot verify in this catalogue: 0–100 not measured, top speed not measured, kerb weight not measured. Versus 3.2 MT the documented change is gearbox (Automatic 4 vs Manual 5), not power. Versus 3.1 MT you gain 63 hp on paper and lose every measured performance and weight figure because those fields are empty on 3.2 AT.

Do not choose between generations. Production is 1998-01-01 to 2003-12-31 for all three versions; pokoleniy is 1. Restyling is not listed as a separate generation.

What extra capability does not buy. There is no price field in the data, so “extra money” is only extra specification: 3.2 power vs 3.1 torque-at-2000-rpm; Manual 5 with full performance rows vs Automatic 4 with performance not measured. Tank (85 L) and clearance (210 mm) do not separate the three.

Short ranking from measured figures only: 3.1 MT for 0–100 and low-rpm 260 Nm; 3.2 MT for hp, kg/hp, and 170 km/h; 3.2 AT when the Automatic is required and missing 0–100, top speed, and kerb are acceptable.