GMC Yukon vs Jeep Compass: Specs Compared

Running cost over five years: at the EPA's 15,000-mile-a-year assumption the Jeep Compass burns about $2,300 of fuel annually against $3,250 for the GMC Yukon. That $950 yearly gap compounds to roughly $4,750 over five years and $7,600 over eight — often more than the price difference between two trims of the same vehicle, and the single largest running-cost line item separating these two.

City and highway economy: the Jeep Compass leads in both cycles — 24 mpg city and 32 mpg highway against 21 and 27 mpg — so its fuel-efficiency advantage holds whether you commute in traffic or cover long highway miles.

Powertrain choice: the GMC Yukon is recorded with 4 distinct engine configurations (3.0, SIDI, SIDI; Stop-Start), the Jeep Compass with 3 (SIDI, 2.4, 2.0). Across 164 recorded GMC Yukon configurations and 45 for the Jeep Compass, the wider the engine spread the more the real-world fuel efficiency depends on which version you actually buy, so check the specific model year and drivetrain rather than the headline number.

Drivetrain and class: the GMC Yukon is offered with 4-Wheel Drive, Rear-Wheel Drive, the Jeep Compass with All-Wheel Drive, Front-Wheel Drive, 4-Wheel Drive. All-wheel drive typically costs one to two mpg combined against the same vehicle in front- or rear-wheel drive, which is worth remembering when the gap between these two is small. The EPA classes them as Standard Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD and Small Sport Utility Vehicle 4WD respectively — the class drives the interior volume, cargo space and passenger space each one is measured against.

Tailpipe emissions: at their cleanest configurations the Jeep Compass emits 330 g/mile of CO2 versus 437 g/mile for the GMC Yukon. Emissions track fuel consumption almost exactly, so the cleaner vehicle here is also the cheaper one to fuel.