2008 Jeep Commander vs. 2005 Land Rover LR3
To start off, 2008 Jeep Commander is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Land Rover LR3. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Land Rover LR3 would be higher. At 4,390 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Land Rover LR3 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2008 Jeep Commander weights approximately 439 kg more than 2005 Land Rover LR3.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or rear wheel drive vehicles. 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, 2008 Jeep Commander (510 Nm) has 83 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Land Rover LR3. (427 Nm). This means 2008 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Land Rover LR3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Jeep Commander | 2005 Land Rover LR3 | |
| Make | Jeep | Land Rover |
| Model | Commander | LR3 |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2005 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2985 cc | 4390 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 300 HP |
| Torque | 510 Nm | 427 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 92 mm | 88 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 83 mm | 90 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 18.0:1 | 10.8:1 |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2900 kg | 2461 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 4860 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1920 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1810 mm | 1890 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2890 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.9 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 86 L |
