Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005 vs Jeep Commander 2006

 
Land Rover Range Rover Sport
2005 - 2009
Jeep Commander
2006 - 2010
Gearbox: AutomaticAutomatic
Engine: 2.7 Diesel3.0 Diesel
Camshaft drive: Timing chain and beltTiming chain

Performance

Power: 190 HP218 HP
Torque: 440 NM510 NM
Acceleration 0-100 km/h: 12.7 seconds9 seconds
Jeep Commander is a more dynamic driving.
Land Rover Range Rover Sport engine produces 28 HP less power than Jeep Commander, whereas torque is 70 NM less than Jeep Commander. Due to the lower power, Land Rover Range Rover Sport reaches 100 km/h speed 3.7 seconds later.

Fuel consumption

Fuel consumption (l/100km): 10.210.8
Real fuel consumption: 11.0 l/100km12.2 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 0.6 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 90 litres of fuel.
By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Land Rover Range Rover Sport consumes 1.2 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander.
Fuel tank capacity: 82 litres78 litres
Full fuel tank distance: 800 km in combined cycle720 km in combined cycle
1000 km on highway840 km on highway
740 km with real consumption630 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: 330'000 km440'000 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 Commander engine could be longer.
Engine production duration: 6 years5 years
Engine spread: Used also on Land Rover DiscoveryInstalled 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 Commander 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 m4.79 m
Width: 1.93 m1.90 m
Height: 1.78 m1.83 m
Land Rover Range Rover Sport and Jeep Commander are practically the same length.
Trunk capacity: 958 litres212 litres
Trunk max capacity:
with rear seats folded down, if possible
2013 litres1940 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: 11.6 meters11.2 meters
The turning circle of the Land Rover Range Rover Sport is 0.4 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`070 kg3`500 kg
Net weight:2`455 kg2`245 kg
Load capacity:615 kg1`255 kg
Land Rover Range Rover Sport load capacity (permitted cargo and passenger weight) is more than two times less than Jeep Commander. Therefore, Jeep Commander is more suitable for longer family trips or transporting heavier loads.
Safety: no datano data
Quality: no datano data
Average price (€): 48008200
Pros and Cons: Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
  • lower fuel consumption
  • more full fuel tank mileage
  • roomier boot
  • lower price
Jeep Commander has
  • more power
  • more dynamic
  • longer expected engine lifespan
  • higher carrying (cargo) capacity
Share these results to social networks or e-mail
Contact us: info@auto-abc.lv