V6 or V8? - Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum
General Commander Discussion General Discussion involving the Jeep Commander goes here. If it does not fit into a more specific category below, post it here.

 4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 11 (permalink) Old 07-30-2016, 01:11 AM Thread Starter
Junior Member
Points: 4, Level: 1 Points: 4, Level: 1 Points: 4, Level: 1
Level up: 7% Level up: 7% Level up: 7%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1
V6 or V8?

I'm contemplating buying a 4x4 Commander and wondering if I should get the V6 for MPG reasons. And knowledgeable opinions on this? "V6 is underpowered," etc?
Brett Ster is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 11 (permalink) Old 07-30-2016, 06:43 AM
Senior Member
Points: 3,844, Level: 39 Points: 3,844, Level: 39 Points: 3,844, Level: 39
Level up: 30% Level up: 30% Level up: 30%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
2010 inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Cement City, Mi.
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Limited
Power-Train: 5.7L V-8 Hemi
4WD
If 4WD - system: QD-II
Current Mileage: 99,000
Posts: 294
Garage
If you are buying for mpg. then it doesn't matter as they all get close to the same, the Commander is a heavy vehicle and that being said it takes more for the V-6 to move it down the road then the V-8. So I feel that you should look at different reasons before you purchase, what is it's main job? what is it's second job? and go from there.


Welcome either way,

Swanny
2010 inferno is offline  
post #3 of 11 (permalink) Old 07-30-2016, 06:44 AM
Senior Member
Points: 33,527, Level: 100 Points: 33,527, Level: 100 Points: 33,527, Level: 100
Level up: 0% Level up: 0% Level up: 0%
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
 
rblapham's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cleveland TN
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2006
Trim Package: Limited
Power-Train: 5.7L V-8 Hemi
4WD
If 4WD - system: QD-II
Current Mileage: 106,000
Posts: 624
Garage
They all get about the same MPG - its the shape of the Commander - a brick and high wind resistance.
Get the HEMI if you can I have achieved 21 MPG with a tail wind. The MDS system helps by shutting off 2 cylinders under light load. Around town they all get 14 or less.
But the HEMI also holds 7 quarts of oil and 16 spark plugs which can add up

06 Commander Limited Hemi - QDII,
Past -89 Comanche, 98 Grand Cherokee (2WD), 2000 Cherokee, 05 Grand Cherokee Limited 4.7
Had to replace the brakes - they opened more gas stations in town
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by rblapham; 07-30-2016 at 06:47 AM.
rblapham is offline  
 
post #4 of 11 (permalink) Old 07-30-2016, 10:27 AM
Super Moderator
Points: 24,609, Level: 95 Points: 24,609, Level: 95 Points: 24,609, Level: 95
Level up: 26% Level up: 26% Level up: 26%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
 
Big Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: East Coast of Florida; Proud to have served.
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2008
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 4.7L V-8
4WD
If 4WD - system: QT-II
Current Mileage: 101,200
Posts: 5,648
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brett Ster View Post
I'm contemplating buying a 4x4 Commander and wondering if I should get the V6 for MPG reasons. And knowledgeable opinions on this? "V6 is underpowered," etc?
I made that mistake back in early 2011 when I bought a 3.7L Grand Cherokee Laredo Rocky Mountain Edition thinking that the V-6 would be better on Gas than a V-8.

That logic does not apply to Jeep Power trains.

You will NOT get noticeably better MPG's buying a V-6 instead of a V-8.

The difference in gas mileage is negligible.

My Grand Cherokee was under-powered; a Commander is larger and heavier.

In my opinion, based on my 2008 Grand Cherokee 3.7L experience, a Commander with a V-6 (3.7L) would be grossly under-powered, but, there are people on this forum that have them and are very happy with them, so obviously, not everyone agrees with me.

I guess it just depends on what you are used to.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Big Blue; 07-31-2016 at 08:49 AM.
Big Blue is offline  
post #5 of 11 (permalink) Old 07-31-2016, 05:17 PM
Banned
Points: 1,575, Level: 22 Points: 1,575, Level: 22 Points: 1,575, Level: 22
Level up: 75% Level up: 75% Level up: 75%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 105
As stated the mpg is about the same either way.
You should drive both the v6 & v8 model to see which feels better to you.
The v6 is not bad but never drove the v8 either. IMO the 3.7 would be better in smaller vehicles, however I have yet to notice any real lack of power when driving around town, fast enough on the hwy too. My opinion is based on real gutless vehicle I've driven that couldn't handle the mass it was pushing. Would a v8 be better for the tonnage? probably.

IMHO 3.7 & 4.7 are good motors if they been maintained, that's the biggest worry i would have.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conundrum2006 is offline  
post #6 of 11 (permalink) Old 08-01-2016, 01:15 PM
Senior Member
Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60 Points: 7,991, Level: 60
Level up: 21% Level up: 21% Level up: 21%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
luckyse7ens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: CA
Own a Commander?: Yes
Model year: 2010
Trim Package: Sport
Power-Train: 3.7L V-6
2WD
If 4WD - system: QT-I
Current Mileage: 140000
Posts: 1,585
The 08+ 4.7l in factory form is pretty similar to a stock early 5.7l as far as power and mpg is concerned. Keep that in mind during your search.

I have the v6. MPG is not noticeably better than the v8 guys, and it is definitely comparatively underpowered. I wanted one of the v8 options, but the wife wanted this one and she wanted it now.
luckyse7ens is offline  
post #7 of 11 (permalink) Old 08-01-2016, 03:13 PM
Senior Member
Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81
Level up: 12% Level up: 12% Level up: 12%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lusby, MD
Posts: 3,037
Being underpowered is subjective, the 3.7L V6 makes as much power as small block V8's of only a few years ago, the Drive-by-Wire computer controlled throttle is probably more responsible for people complaining, "it ain't got the get up and go I want"....but there are a few points that make the V8 a better deal.

The V6's almost always came with QTI 4X4, which doesn't have a 4LOW nor the ability to switch the XFR Case into neutral. A few did come with QTII, but what are the chances you're going to find one of those in the used market.

The 4.7L V8 mostly came with QTII, which can shift into 4LOW, locking the XFR case and shift the XFR case into neutral, something you need for towing behind an RV or serious off-roading.


Some of the HEMI V8's came with the QDII that can do everything that the QTII can do, plus has electronic LSD's in both front and rear axle, that provide even more serious off-roading ability.

The simpler 4X4 systems are still plenty capable off road, and less complex and have less trouble. The QTI doesn't have the N23, Service 4WD system that you see a lot posts about.


But if you want to do be able to do true mudding, you need the 4LOW of the QTII or QDII systems, and QDII with the ELSD's is even better. You'll have to change axle fluid more often and will have more things to break. The V8 power when mudding is more than a small advantage.


Like mentioned, the gas mileage difference is negligible, the V8's are so efficient now, its really doesn't make much of a difference. The V6's were popular because of the price, the difference in cost for V6 vs a HEMI made a significant difference in the selling price, and might make for a difference used car prices as well.

Oh BTW, the MDS of the Hemi shuts down 4 of the 8 cylinders, NOT just 2.

Oh yea, room to work on the engine, sorry, the modern crash protection standards puts so much extra metal, bigger frame rails and extra frame pieces in the front of the car, even the V6 is crowded as all get out and a total PITA to fit your hands into places to work on it, the V8's are even worse.
luckyse7ens and Conundrum2006 like this.

Last edited by Mongo; 08-01-2016 at 03:16 PM.
Mongo is offline  
post #8 of 11 (permalink) Old 08-01-2016, 04:28 PM
Member
Points: 1,374, Level: 20 Points: 1,374, Level: 20 Points: 1,374, Level: 20
Level up: 74% Level up: 74% Level up: 74%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 76
5.7 is a blast to drive. Enough reason for me
PickleSlice is offline  
post #9 of 11 (permalink) Old 08-01-2016, 05:32 PM
Banned
Points: 1,575, Level: 22 Points: 1,575, Level: 22 Points: 1,575, Level: 22
Level up: 75% Level up: 75% Level up: 75%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 105
Having taken a 3.7 out I can attest it is tightly packed in. 4.7 is only 2 more cylinders, not enough to change much IMO.

Trying to take valve cover off with the motor just about bare about ready to pull out was still a struggle. The smaller KJs are easier to do this maintenance.you'd think it'd be the XK that is easier to work on.

Biggest strike against newer engine bays is any maintenance takes ten extra step because the motor and transmission are assembled then installed from the bottom into the frame of the jeep. Some bolts are almost inaccessible.

I would agree a v8 is a better fit for the XK, yet the v6 is not the pathetic slouch I'd expect. But ours also has the old fashion throttlebody, maybe that makes all the difference


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
luckyse7ens likes this.
Conundrum2006 is offline  
post #10 of 11 (permalink) Old 08-02-2016, 10:52 AM
Senior Member
Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81 Points: 15,906, Level: 81
Level up: 12% Level up: 12% Level up: 12%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
 
Mongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lusby, MD
Posts: 3,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conundrum2006 View Post
Biggest strike against newer engine bays is any maintenance takes ten extra step because the motor and transmission are assembled then installed from the bottom into the frame of the jeep. Some bolts are almost inaccessible.
They built cars like that since the 60's, maybe even the 50's.


But you're still right, in the past they designed it well enough the bolts were still accessible and there was still room to do the various maintenance and repair jobs without having to pull out a dozen components first just to get to the one component that needs changed.



I think its mostly all the government requirements hoisted on the car companies.
  • Gov wants the vehicles to be more crash resistant which makes them bigger and heavier.
  • Gov want the vehicles to be smaller and lighter.
  • Gov want the vehicles to make less pollution, which makes them less fuel efficient.
  • Gov want the vehicles to get better mileage.
  • Consumers choices form the market, so consumers NOT knowing NOR caring about these contradictions, nor ease of maintenance for a vehicle lets the manufacturer continue down this trend.

So there is a lot of pressures on the designers to squeeze things together more to meet all the standards. And to add lots of extra equipment in tight spaces to meet all the standards as well.



So I do have some sympathy before bad mouthing the designers.


But, I think we both agree, there are times working on the newer cars you scratch your head and have to say, did the designers ever take into account that this part would have to be removed and replaced one day? Or did they just assume the entire drivetrain and subframe would be separated and lowered from the body, in reverse of what they do on the assembly line, to service the part?
luckyse7ens likes this.
Mongo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum > Jeep Commander Discussion > General Commander Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Commander Forums: Jeep Commander Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome