Jeep Commander 2006 vs Jeep Grand Cherokee 2005
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 5.7 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 218 HP | 326 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 500 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 7.1 seconds | |
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee is a more dynamic driving. Jeep Commander engine produces 108 HP less power than Jeep Grand Cherokee, but torque is 10 NM more than Jeep Grand Cherokee. Due to the lower power, Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 1.9 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 15.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 15.6 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Commander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Commander consumes 4.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which means that by driving the Jeep Commander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 690 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 3.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Grand Cherokee. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 500 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 620 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 500 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Commander 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 | 520'000 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 Grand Cherokee engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 4 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 Chrysler 300C, Dodge Charger | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. | |||
| 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 | 1.87 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.74 m | |
|
Jeep Commander is larger. Jeep Commander is 4 cm longer than the Jeep Grand Cherokee, 3 cm wider, while the height of Jeep Commander is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 978 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | 1909 litres | |
| Despite its longer length, Jeep Commander has 766 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Grand 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. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jeep Commander (by 31 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | average | |
| Average price (€): | 9400 | 5600 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Jeep Grand Cherokee has
| |