2005 Dodge Dakota vs. 2010 Jeep Commander
To start off, 2010 Jeep Commander is newer by 5 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 4,701 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Jeep Commander is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Jeep Commander (305 HP @ 5650 RPM) has 95 more horse power than 2005 Dodge Dakota. (210 HP @ 5600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Jeep Commander should accelerate faster than 2005 Dodge Dakota. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Dodge Dakota weights approximately 157 kg more than 2010 Jeep Commander.
Let's talk about torque, 2010 Jeep Commander (454 Nm) has 135 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Dodge Dakota. (319 Nm). This means 2010 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Dodge Dakota.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Dodge Dakota | 2010 Jeep Commander | |
Make | Dodge | Jeep |
Model | Dakota | Commander |
Year Released | 2005 | 2010 |
Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3703 cc | 4701 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 305 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 5650 RPM |
Torque | 319 Nm | 454 Nm |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2200 kg | 2043 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 | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 83 L | 80 L |