Jeep Wrangler 2007 vs Jeep Commander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.8 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing chain | |
| Timing belt usually needs to be replaced more often than the chain, but it is usually significantly cheaper. Timing belt motors are generally quieter and less vibrating than chain motors. | |||
Performance | |||
| Power: | 177 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 410 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.3 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is a more dynamic driving. Jeep Wrangler engine produces 41 HP less power than Jeep Commander, whereas torque is 100 NM less than Jeep Commander. Due to the lower power, Jeep Wrangler reaches 100 km/h speed 1.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.7 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.8 l/100km | 12.2 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Wrangler is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Jeep Wrangler consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander, which means that by driving the Jeep Wrangler over 15,000 km in a year you can save 165 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Jeep Wrangler consumes 0.4 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 66 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 680 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 550 km with real consumption | 630 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: | 420'000 km | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Chrysler Grand Voyager, Jeep Cherokee, Dodge Nitro | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler 300C | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Jeep Wrangler 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: | 4.22 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.87 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.80 m | 1.83 m | |
|
Jeep Wrangler is smaller. Jeep Wrangler is 57 cm shorter than the Jeep Commander, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Jeep Wrangler is 3 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 141 litres | 212 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1940 litres | |
|
Jeep Commander has more luggage space. Jeep Wrangler has 71 litres less trunk space than the Jeep Commander. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.4 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Jeep Wrangler is 0.8 metres less than that of the Jeep Commander, which means Jeep Wrangler can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`500 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 22 800 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Jeep Wrangler has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |