2005 Dodge Dakota vs. 2009 Jeep Commander
To start off, 2009 Jeep Commander is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Dodge Dakota. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Dodge Dakota would be higher. At 3,704 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Dodge Dakota is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, both vehicles can yield 210 horse power. So under normal driving conditions, the acceleration of both vehicles should be relatively similar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Dodge Dakota weights approximately 444 kg more than 2009 Jeep Commander.
Let's talk about torque, both vehicles can yield 320 Nm of torque. So under normal driving conditions, the ability to climb up hills and pull heavy equipment should be relatively similar for both vehicles.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Dodge Dakota | 2009 Jeep Commander | |
| Make | Dodge | Jeep |
| Model | Dakota | Commander |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3704 cc | 3701 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 210 HP | 210 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 320 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1837 kg | 1393 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5560 mm | 4790 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1910 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1750 mm | 1840 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3340 mm | 2790 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.7 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 80 L |
