Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2009 vs Jeep Commander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 3.0 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 245 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 600 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 9.3 seconds | 9 seconds | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 27 HP more power than Jeep Commander, whereas torque is 90 NM more than Jeep Commander. Despite the higher power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 12.1 l/100km | 12.2 l/100km | |
|
The Land Rover Range Rover Sport is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander, which means that by driving the Land Rover Range Rover Sport over 15,000 km in a year you can save 240 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 0.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 84 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 910 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 690 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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: | 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: | 17 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover Discovery | 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. Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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 | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 2.00 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport and Jeep Commander are practically the same length. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 958 litres | 212 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down, if possible |
2013 litres | 1940 litres | |
|
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has more luggage capacity. Land Rover Range Rover Sport has 746 litres more trunk space than the Jeep Commander. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Land Rover Range Rover Sport (by 73 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.9 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.7 metres more than that of the Jeep Commander, which means Land Rover Range Rover Sport can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight: | 3`175 kg | 3`500 kg | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 8800 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |