Jeep Commander 2006 vs Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005

 
Jeep Commander
2006 - 2010
Land Rover Range Rover Sport
2005 - 2009
Gearbox: AutomaticAutomatic
Engine: 3.0 Diesel2.7 Diesel
Camshaft drive: Timing chainTiming chain and belt

Performance

Power: 218 HP190 HP
Torque: 510 NM440 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 9 seconds12.7 seconds
Jeep Commander is more dynamic to drive.
Jeep Commander engine produces 28 HP more power than Land Rover Range Rover Sport, whereas torque is 70 NM more than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Thanks to more power Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds faster.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 10.810.2
Real fuel consumption: 12.2 l/100km11.0 l/100km
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy.
By specification Jeep Commander consumes 0.6 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 90 litres more fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 1.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Land Rover Range Rover Sport.
Fuel tank capacity: 78 litres82 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 720 km in combined cycle800 km in combined cycle
840 km on highway1000 km on highway
630 km with real consumption740 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 km330'000 km
Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Jeep Commander engine could be longer.
Engine production duration: 5 years6 years
Engine spread: Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300CUsed also on 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. Jeep Commander 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 m4.79 m
Width: 1.90 m1.93 m
Height: 1.83 m1.78 m
Jeep Commander and Land Rover Range Rover Sport are practically the same length.
Trunk capacity: 212 litres958 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down, if possible
1940 litres2013 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 meters11.6 meters
The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 0.4 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 kg3`070 kg
Net weight:2`245 kg2`455 kg
Load capacity:1`255 kg615 kg
Jeep Commander load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is par apmēram 51 procentiem more than Land Rover Range Rover Sport. Therefore, Jeep Commander is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads.
Safety: no datano data
Quality: no datano data
Average price (€): 82005200
Pros and Cons: Jeep Commander has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
  • longer expected engine lifespan
  • higher carrying (cargo) capacity
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
  • lower price
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv