Chevrolet Equinox 2005 vs Jeep Commander 2006
Select specific versions of each model (by engine capacity, power, drivetrain and gearbox) for an accurate comparison
Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
---|---|---|---|
Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) / All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Chevrolet Equinox is available with front wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive, while Jeep Commander can be equipped with rear wheel drive and four wheel (4x4) drive. All-wheel drive models tend to consume more fuel, so if you don't need off road capabilities, Chevrolet Equinox also offers 2-wheel drive versions for fuel economy. 2WD versions also have lower maintenance costs. | |||
Engines: | 3.4 - 3.6 (petrol) | 3.0 - 5.7 (petrol, diesel) | |
Performance | |||
Power: | 185 - 264 HP | 213 - 326 HP | |
Torque: | 285 - 339 NM | 319 - 510 NM | |
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 7.4 - 9.5 seconds | |
Select a car version for a more accurate comparison! | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.0 - 11.0 | 10.8 - 15.5 | |
Chevrolet Equinox petrol engines consumes on average 3.9 litres less fuel per 100 km than Jeep Commander. This comparison does not take engine capacity into account, so to compare the fuel consumption of specific engines, select the car version! | |||
Dimensions | |||
Length: | 4.80 m | 4.79 m | |
Width: | 1.81 m | 1.90 m | |
Height: | 1.76 m | 1.84 m | |
Chevrolet Equinox and Jeep Commander are practically the same length. | |||
Trunk capacity: | 860 litres | 212 litres | |
Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1950 litres | |
Chevrolet Equinox has more luggage capacity. Chevrolet Equinox has 648 litres more trunk space than the Jeep Commander. | |||
Turning diameter: | no data | 11.8 meters | |
Gross weight (kg): | no data | ~ 3`186 | |
Safety: | no data | no data | |
Quality: | no data | no data | |
Average price (€): | no data | 9400 | |
Pros and Cons: |
Chevrolet Equinox has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |