Jeep Commander 2006 vs Jeep Cherokee 2008
| 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 | 460 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 10.5 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is more dynamic to drive. Jeep Commander engine produces 41 HP more power than Jeep Cherokee, whereas torque is 50 NM more than Jeep Cherokee. Thanks to more power Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 10.8 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Cherokee is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Commander consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Cherokee, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Commander could require 210 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 1.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 740 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 890 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
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 Wrangler, 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 Cherokee 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 | 4.49 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.84 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Jeep Commander is larger. Jeep Commander is 30 cm longer than the Jeep Cherokee, 6 cm wider, while the height of Jeep Commander is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 878 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | no data | |
|
Jeep Cherokee has more luggage space. Despite its longer length, Jeep Commander has 666 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Cherokee. This could mean that the Jeep Commander uses more space in the cabin, so the driver and passengers could be more spacious and comfortable. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 10.8 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 0.4 metres more than that of the Jeep Cherokee. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`520 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 7400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Jeep Cherokee has
| |