2009 Jeep Commander vs. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2009 Jeep Commander is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee would be higher. At 3,966 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Jeep Commander (210 HP @ 5200 RPM) has 15 more horse power than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (195 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Jeep Commander should accelerate faster than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 371 kg more than 2009 Jeep Commander.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Jeep Commander (320 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 8 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee. (312 Nm @ 3000 RPM). This means 2009 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Jeep Commander | 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
Make | Jeep | Jeep |
Model | Commander | Grand Cherokee |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3701 cc | 3966 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 195 HP |
Engine RPM | 5200 RPM | 3800 RPM |
Torque | 320 Nm | 312 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3000 RPM |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1393 kg | 1764 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 4610 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1840 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1840 mm | 1770 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2700 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 15.7 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 78 L |