2008 Jeep Commander vs. 2003 MG ZR
To start off, 2008 Jeep Commander is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2003 MG ZR. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2003 MG ZR would be higher. At 5,654 cc (8 cylinders), 2008 Jeep Commander is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2008 Jeep Commander is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2003 MG ZR. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 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. 2008 Jeep Commander has automatic transmission and 2003 MG ZR has manual transmission. 2003 MG ZR will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2008 Jeep Commander will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Jeep Commander | 2003 MG ZR | |
| Make | Jeep | MG |
| Model | Commander | ZR |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2003 |
| Body Type | SUV | Hatchback |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5654 cc | 1794 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 158 HP |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 3 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 4020 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1690 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1830 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2510 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 17 L/100km | 7.5 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 65 L |
