Toyota Land Cruiser 2002 vs Jeep Commander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 4.2 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: | 204 HP | 218 HP | |
| Torque: | 430 NM | 510 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 13.1 seconds | 9 seconds | |
|
Jeep Commander is a more dynamic driving. Toyota Land Cruiser engine produces 14 HP less power than Jeep Commander, whereas torque is 80 NM less than Jeep Commander. Due to the lower power, Toyota Land Cruiser reaches 100 km/h speed 4.1 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 12.6 | 10.8 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 13.8 l/100km | 12.2 l/100km | |
|
The Jeep Commander is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.8 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Toyota Land Cruiser could require 270 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Toyota Land Cruiser consumes 1.6 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Jeep Commander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 96 litres | 78 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 720 km in combined cycle | |
| 880 km on highway | 840 km on highway | ||
| 690 km with real consumption | 630 km with real consumption | ||
| Toyota Land Cruiser 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: | 560'000 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 Toyota Land Cruiser engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 10 years | 5 years | |
| Engine spread: | Used only for this car | 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. | |||
| 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: | 4.89 m | 4.79 m | |
| Width: | 1.94 m | 1.90 m | |
| Height: | 1.89 m | 1.83 m | |
|
Toyota Land Cruiser is larger. Toyota Land Cruiser is 10 cm longer than the Jeep Commander, 4 cm wider, while the height of Toyota Land Cruiser is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 212 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1940 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 11.8 meters | 11.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Toyota Land Cruiser is 0.6 metres more than that of the Jeep Commander, which means Toyota Land Cruiser can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 3`500 | 3`500 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | no data | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 11 000 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Toyota Land Cruiser has
|
Jeep Commander has
| |