Jeep Commander 2006 vs Volvo XC90 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 2.4 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 | 185 HP | |
| Torque: | 510 NM | 400 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9 seconds | 12 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is more dynamic to drive. Jeep Commander engine produces 33 HP more power than Volvo XC90, whereas torque is 110 NM more than Volvo XC90. Thanks to more power Jeep Commander reaches 100 km/h speed 3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.8 | 8.5 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.2 l/100km | 10.1 l/100km | |
|
The Volvo XC90 is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Commander consumes 2.3 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Jeep Commander could require 345 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Commander consumes 2.1 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Volvo XC90. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 78 litres | 68 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 720 km in combined cycle | 800 km in combined cycle | |
| 840 km on highway | 970 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 670 km with real consumption | ||
| Volvo XC90 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 | 480'000 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 Volvo XC90 engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 5 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300C | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Volvo V70, Volvo S80, Volvo S60, Volvo XC70, Volvo XC60 | |
| 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. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.79 m | 4.81 m | |
| Width: | 1.90 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.83 m | 1.78 m | |
| Jeep Commander is 2 cm shorter than the Volvo XC90, width is practically the same , while the height of Jeep Commander is 5 cm higher. | |||
| Seats: | no data | 7 seats | |
| Trunk capacity: | 212 litres | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 7 seats: | no data | 249 litres | |
| Trunk capacity with 5 seats: | 212 litres | 613 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1940 litres | 1837 litres | |
| In 5-seat version Volvo XC90 has more luggage space (by 401 litres). The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Jeep Commander (by 103 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.2 meters | 12.5 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Commander is 1.3 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`750 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | low | |
| Average price (€): | 9200 | 9000 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Commander has
|
Volvo XC90 has
| |