Nissan Pathfinder 2005 vs Jeep Commander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.5 Diesel | 3.0 Diesel | |
| Camshaft drive: | Double-row timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 174 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 403 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.6 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is a more dynamic driving. Nissan Pathfinder engine produces 44 HP less power than Jeep Commander, whereas torque is 107 NM less than Jeep Commander. Due to the lower power, Nissan Pathfinder reaches 100 km/h speed 2.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.1 l/100km | 12.2 l/100km | |
|
The Nissan Pathfinder is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Nissan Pathfinder consumes 0.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander, which means that by driving the Nissan Pathfinder over 15,000 km in a year you can save 105 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Nissan Pathfinder consumes 1.1 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 80 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 790 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 960 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 720 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Nissan Pathfinder 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 | 440'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 27 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Nissan Navara, Nissan Murano | 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. Nissan Pathfinder might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | no | yes | |
| The Jeep Commander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
| 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: | 4.74 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.85 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.78 m | 1.83 m | |
|
Nissan Pathfinder is smaller. Nissan Pathfinder is 5 cm shorter than the Jeep Commander, 5 cm narrower, while the height of Nissan Pathfinder is 5 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 515 litres | 212 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
2091 litres | 1940 litres | |
|
Nissan Pathfinder has more luggage capacity. Even though the car is shorter, Nissan Pathfinder has 303 litres more trunk space than the Jeep Commander. The Jeep Commander may have more interior space, so the cabin could be more spacious and more comfortable for the driver and passengers. The maximum boot capacity (with all rear seats folded down) is larger in Nissan Pathfinder (by 151 litres). | |||
| Turning diameter: | 12.4 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Nissan Pathfinder is 1.2 metres more than that of the Jeep Commander, which means Nissan Pathfinder can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`880 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 6400 | 9400 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Nissan Pathfinder has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |