Land Rover Range Rover Sport 2005 vs Jeep Commander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.7 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain and belt | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 190 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 440 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 9 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): | 10.2 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.0 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 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 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 800 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 740 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Land Rover Range Rover Sport 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: | 330'000 km | 440'000 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 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used also on 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. 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 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.93 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: | no data | 212 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1940 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.6 meters | 11.2 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 (kg): | no data | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 5600 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Land Rover Range Rover Sport has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |