Jeep Commander 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Diesel (Jeep Commander) engines typically outperform gasoline engines in terms of fuel efficiency and low-end torque. This makes them more economical and better suited for towing or long-distance travel. However, gasoline (Volvo XC90) engines mostly are lighter, quieter, and offer better acceleration and responsiveness, especially in smaller vehicles. For more information, see the article "Diesel or Petrol: Fuel Economy and Key Differences." | |||
| 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 | 210 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 9.9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is more dynamic to drive. Jeep Commander engine produces 8 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 190 NM more than Volvo XC90. Thanks to more power Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 12.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 12.1 l/100km | |
|
By specification Jeep Commander consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that by driving the Jeep Commander over 15,000 km in a year you can save 180 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Jeep Commander consumes 0.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 70 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 730 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 570 km with real consumption | ||
| Jeep Commander 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 | 10 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300C | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Volvo XC90 might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Jeep Commander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| 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 | 4.80 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.74 m | |
| Jeep Commander is 1 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, width is practically the same , while the height of Jeep Commander is 9 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | 2404 litres | |
|
Volvo XC90 has more luggage space. Jeep Commander has 37 litres less trunk space than the Volvo XC90. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Volvo XC90 (by 464 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 12.7 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 1.5 metres less than that of the Volvo XC90, which means Jeep Commander can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 2`720 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 8400 | 3400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |