2009 Cadillac DTS vs. 2010 Jeep Commander
To start off, 2010 Jeep Commander is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Cadillac DTS. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Cadillac DTS would be higher. At 4,565 cc (8 cylinders), 2009 Cadillac DTS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Cadillac DTS (271 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 61 more horse power than 2010 Jeep Commander. (210 HP @ 5200 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac DTS should accelerate faster than 2010 Jeep Commander.
Because 2010 Jeep Commander is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2010 Jeep Commander. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Cadillac DTS, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 2010 Jeep Commander (320 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 24 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Cadillac DTS. (296 Nm @ 4400 RPM). This means 2010 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Cadillac DTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac DTS | 2010 Jeep Commander | |
| Make | Cadillac | Jeep |
| Model | DTS | Commander |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4565 cc | 3701 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 271 HP | 210 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5200 RPM |
| Torque | 296 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1910 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.2 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
