2001 Mazda CU-X vs. 2010 Jeep Commander
To start off, 2010 Jeep Commander is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2001 Mazda CU-X. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2001 Mazda CU-X would be higher. At 5,654 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Jeep Commander is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jeep Commander (347 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 248 more horse power than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (99 HP @ 4000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jeep Commander should accelerate faster than 2001 Mazda CU-X. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Jeep Commander weights approximately 1010 kg more than 2001 Mazda CU-X. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2010 Jeep Commander is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2001 Mazda CU-X. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Jeep Commander will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2010 Jeep Commander (520 Nm) has 280 more torque (in Nm) than 2001 Mazda CU-X. (240 Nm). This means 2010 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2001 Mazda CU-X.
Compare all specifications:
2001 Mazda CU-X | 2010 Jeep Commander | |
Make | Mazda | Jeep |
Model | CU-X | Commander |
Year Released | 2001 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1970 cc | 5654 cc |
Horse Power | 99 HP | 347 HP |
Engine RPM | 4000 RPM | 5000 RPM |
Torque | 240 Nm | 520 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Vehicle Weight | 1345 kg | 2355 kg |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2790 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 80 L |