Jeep Commander 2006 vs Infiniti FX 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.5 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Jeep Commander) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Infiniti FX) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 280 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 366 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 7.1 seconds | |
|
Infiniti FX is a more dynamic driving. Jeep Commander engine produces 62 HP less power than Infiniti FX, but torque is 144 NM more than Infiniti FX. Due to the lower power, Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 12.1 | |
|
The Jeep Commander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Jeep Commander consumes 1.3 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Infiniti FX, which means that by driving the Jeep Commander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 195 litres of fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 90 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 880 km on highway | ||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Rear wheel drive (RWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 25 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300C | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Murano | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Infiniti FX might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Jeep Commander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| Jeep Commander 2006 3.0 engine: The main issues with this diesel engine stem from the fuel system and its sensitive piezo injectors. These injectors are known for being highly demanding in terms of fuel quality, which can lead to performance ... More about Jeep Commander 2006 3.0 engine | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.93 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.65 m | |
|
Jeep Commander is smaller, but higher. Jeep Commander is 2 cm shorter than the Infiniti FX, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Commander is 18 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 776 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | 1826 litres | |
| Jeep Commander has 564 litres less trunk space than the Infiniti FX. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jeep Commander (by 114 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 0.6 metres less than that of the Infiniti FX, which means Jeep Commander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`340 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 4800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Infiniti FX has
| |