Jeep Commander 2006 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain and belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 245 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 600 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 9.3 seconds | |
| Jeep Commander engine produces 27 HP less power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, whereas torque is 90 NM less than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Despite less power, Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 9.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Commander consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Commander could require 240 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 84 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 910 km in combined cycle | |
| 630 km with real consumption | 690 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| 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) | 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 | 17 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 Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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 | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 2.00 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.78 m | |
| Jeep Commander and Land Rover Range Rover Sport are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 958 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
1940 litres | 2013 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage space. Jeep Commander has 746 litres less trunk space than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 73 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.9 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 0.7 metres less than that of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport, which means Jeep Commander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`500 kg | 3`175 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8200 | 8600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
| |