Jeep Commander 2006 vs Jeep Wrangler 2007
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.8 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing belt | |
| Engine chain usually needs to be replaced less often than the timing belt, but the cost of replacing the chain is usually higher. Chain motors are considered to be more reliable, but noisier and more vibration generating. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 177 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 410 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | n/a seconds | |
| Jeep Commander engine produces 41 HP more power than Jeep Wrangler, whereas torque is 100 NM more than Jeep Wrangler. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 9.9 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 11.8 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Wrangler is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Commander consumes 0.9 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Wrangler, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Commander could require 135 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Wrangler. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 79 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 790 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 940 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 660 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Wrangler gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 440'000 km | 420'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 12 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300C | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Nitro | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Wrangler might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| 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 | 4.75 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.88 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.80 m | |
| Both cars are similar in size. Jeep Commander is 4 cm longer than the Jeep Wrangler, 2 cm wider, while the height of Jeep Commander is 3 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | no data | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | 2322 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 12.25 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 1.05 metres less than that of the Jeep Wrangler, which means Jeep Commander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`505 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 17 000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Jeep Wrangler has
| |