2008 Jeep Commander vs. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro
To start off, 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Jeep Commander. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Jeep Commander would be higher. At 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2013 Chevrolet Camaro is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2008 Jeep Commander is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2013 Chevrolet Camaro. 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 2013 Chevrolet Camaro has manual transmission. 2013 Chevrolet Camaro 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 | 2013 Chevrolet Camaro | |
Make | Jeep | Chevrolet |
Model | Commander | Camaro |
Year Released | 2008 | 2013 |
Body Type | SUV | Convertible |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 5654 cc | 6200 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 420 HP |
Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 7 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 4836 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1918 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1830 mm | 1377 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2852 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.4 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 16.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 15.7 L/100km | 12.3 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 72 L |