Jeep Commander

[ocnblu]

Stopped by one of the local Mopar dealerships this afternoon and looked at the new bigger Jeep. Sure enough, it's blocky, but it's handsome, and despite the pics that make it look kinda tippy, it really doesn't give that impression first hand. It has a nice stance. Overall, I give it a preliminary grade of B (haven't driven it.)

[Bimmer325]

I've seen 7 on the road already. Looks much better in person. That drab beige color used in press release photos was horrible.

[AAS]

I saw one on campus... It looks a lot smaller then what I expected. Is it closer in size to the Tahoe, or Suburban?

[Cory Wolfe]

I saw one already... Still don't like it and think the interior looks horrible and cheap while the exterior is a bloated retro Cherokee. Bleh...

[daves87rs]

I had one behind me toady...wow, big...and not too bad looking... Also seen a few on the roads...

[caddycruiser]

I saw one on campus... It looks a lot smaller then what I expected.  Is it closer in size to the Tahoe, or Suburban?

[post="29703"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Tahoe, definately, even though I was under the impression after seeing only pics that it was more Suburban-sized. In reality, just looks like a Cherokee that's been slightly modernized and stretched a little.

[regfootball]

the third row packaging is horrendous, but the first tow rows are comfy and the interior is pretty decent if somewhat plasticky. One thing is for sure, brand identity. It is unmistakably a Jeep. You can't say the new Impala has that strong a brand identity, for example. Edited October 17, 2005 by regfootball

[BrewSwillis]

Man, how do they get away with such a cheap interior?


:rolleyes:

[Robert Hall]

Tahoe, definately, even though I was under the impression after seeing only pics that it was more Suburban-sized.  In reality, just looks like a Cherokee that's been slightly modernized and stretched a little.

It's considerably smaller than the Tahoe..more Explorer-sized. Same wheelbase (109 inches) as the GC, but taller. The 3rd row is very cramped from what I've read. Overall length is about the same as the GC (188.5 inches).

They probably should have stretched the wheelbase a few inches for more 3rd row legroom. but I'm glad they didn't make it as big as the bloated, ugly Durango. Edited October 17, 2005 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Man, how do they get away with such a cheap interior?
:rolleyes:

[post="30067"][/post]

But actually touch that grey dash material. It feels awfull!. It's the same stuff they use in the downmarket 300s and Magnums.

[Robert Hall]

But actually touch that grey dash material. It feels awfull!.  It's the same stuff they use in the downmarket 300s and Magnums.

Yeah, just like the new GC...I've sat in a couple of '05 GCs and was really dissapointed with the dash materials and design...my '00 GC has a much nicer dash in terms of design and layout and the materials (nice squishy plastic)..

[pow]

C/D compared one to the new Explorer, and the Commander won by 2 points. I still prefer the Expy, though... the Commander is far too ostentatious. Or as C/D suggested, an Odyssey:

Unless you're conducting some "difficulty eight" off-roading, neither of these SUVs is much fun. If your goal is simply to seat seven, buy a minivan. A Honda Odyssey is quicker to 60 mph than the [V-8] Explorer, has a higher top speed than either of these SUVs, is quieter at idle, offers better fuel economy, outgrips both, is faster through our lange change, includes steering with actual feel, affords easier access to the third seat, will carry more than two fulgurites when the rearmost seat is raised, and will tow 3500 pounds -- sufficient for any of the ATVs, motorbikes, buggies or two-person campers we encountered at the dunes. Did we mention that minivans are cheaper?

Buying an Explorer or Commander on the premiuse that you might, one day, need to carry seven person and tow a Bayliner up to Chicken Point is like buying the Playboy mansion on the premiuse that you might, one day, have 17 bosomy, dumb girlfriends who all want to live with you at the same time. Yeah, it could happen. But why pay the mortgage until it does?

[BrewSwillis]

C/D compared one to the new Explorer, and the Commander won by 2 points. I still prefer the Expy, though... the Commander is far too ostentatious. Or as C/D suggested, an Odyssey:

[post="30085"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

OMG, now Honda&Driver is trying to tell you to but a Honda in an article comparing a Jeep and a Ford? :blink: :angry:

[BrewSwillis]

But actually touch that grey dash material. It feels awfull!.  It's the same stuff they use in the downmarket 300s and Magnums.

[post="30071"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If it's the same as my 300 Touring, then it should feel pretty nice. All of the interior pieces, above the knees, in my 300 feel soft and nice. The only hard plastic is on the lower dash and lower door map pockets.

[Mule Bakersdozen LS]

I saw one on campus... It looks a lot smaller then what I expected.  Is it closer in size to the Tahoe, or Suburban?

[post="29703"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Its smaller than both or the Durango-its closer to TrailBlazer size-actually a little less than that even. A wasted effort in my opinion.

[Drew Dowdell]

If it's the same as my 300 Touring, then it should feel pretty nice.  All of the interior pieces, above the knees, in my 300 feel soft and nice.  The only hard plastic is on the lower dash and lower door map pockets.

[post="30089"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm not sure what they put on the Chrysler Diplomat Touring, but the base model Dipomat I drove from Enterprise had a very crappy feeling dash. It made the dash in my CTS feel luxurious.

[Robert Hall]

I'm not sure what they put on the Chrysler Diplomat Touring, but the base model Dipomat I drove from Enterprise had a very crappy feeling dash. It made the dash in my CTS feel luxurious.

What is a 'Diplomat Touring'?

[Robert Hall]

Its smaller than both or the Durango-its closer to TrailBlazer size-actually a little less than that even. A wasted effort in my opinion.

[post="30091"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

It's about the same size as the GC or Explorer but taller...it gives Jeep a midsize SUV with a 3rd row seats...

[BrewSwillis]

I'm not sure what they put on the Chrysler Diplomat Touring, but the base model Dipomat I drove from Enterprise had a very crappy feeling dash. It made the dash in my CTS feel luxurious.

[post="30103"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Your CTS should feel luxurious......it costs $10K more than the base 300! http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[Robert Hall]

Your CTS should feel luxurious......it costs $10K more than the base 300!  http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

True, but what in the heck is a 'Chrysler Diplomat Touring'? I know there is a 300 wagon called the Touring in Europe, but 'Diplomat'? The last Diplomat I remember is the bland '80s cop car from Dodge...

[Drew Dowdell]

True, but what in the heck is a 'Chrysler Diplomat Touring'? I know there is a 300 wagon called the Touring in Europe, but 'Diplomat'?  The last Diplomat I remember is the bland '80s cop car from Dodge...

[post="30117"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Let's just say that I'm not the biggest fan of the 300. I think it's looks have more in common with the last Diplomat then anything else in the Chrysler line. It has questionable ergonomics and the downmarket models feel very downmarket. Sure it has RWD and a big V8, but there is more to a car then that. I'm not saying its a bad car, I liked it at first, but I'm over the looks now. I've driven a few rentals and rode in a top-o-the-line a few times and they drive and handle fine.


I threw in the comment about the CTS because the CTS gets panned for it's interior so often.

[The O.C.]

If it's the same as my 300 Touring, then it should feel pretty nice.  All of the interior pieces, above the knees, in my 300 feel soft and nice.  The only hard plastic is on the lower dash and lower door map pockets.

[post="30089"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The LX car materials ARE different....and much nicer than what DCX is putting into the Jeeps (Liberty excluded....it's better) and trucks.

My impression of the Commander is cheap interior materials, but actually nice stalk/switch/knob feel. Fit-and-finish is pretty good....even though the dash and door panel plastics are hard and nasty. Call it acceptable but certainly a level away from world-class.

I too feel the Commander has a unique Jeep presence on the road that's not readily apparent in pictures. Call it a "poor man's" version of the Land Rover LR3.

The HEMI powertrain, of course, is first-class and we all know the Jeep will be more-than-adept at tackling challenging terrain.

[The O.C.]

Your CTS should feel luxurious......it costs $10K more than the base 300!  http://www.cheersandgears.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/AH-HA_wink.gif

[post="30116"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Dash plastics in the LX cars are all the same regardless of trim level (2.7L up to 300C.)

The only real trim difference on the dash, etc., is the trim surrounding the center stack (eg...fake woodgrain, silver "aluminum" trim, etc.)

Dash tops and door panels are all the same.

[Robert Hall]

Let's just say that I'm not the biggest fan of the 300. I think it's looks have more in common with the last Diplomat then anything else in the Chrysler line. It has questionable ergonomics and the downmarket models feel very downmarket. Sure it has RWD and a big V8, but there is more to a car then that.  I'm not saying its a bad car, I liked it at first, but I'm over the looks now. I've driven a few rentals and rode in a top-o-the-line a few times and they drive and handle fine.
I threw in the comment about the CTS because the CTS gets panned for it's interior so often.

So you were referring to the 300 as a 'Diplomat'? Wierd...I see no resembalance between the two...the Diplomat was a styleless '80s box-on-wheels...dull, dull, dull.. and mechanically ancient (leaf springs, solid rear axle, etc).

nothing like the 300 which is thoroughly modern with sleek, angular styling.. Edited October 17, 2005 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

So you were referring to the 300 as a 'Diplomat'?  Wierd...I see no resembalance between the two...the Diplomat was a styleless '80s box-on-wheels...dull, dull, dull.. and mechanically ancient (leaf springs, solid rear axle, etc).

nothing like the 300 which is thoroughly modern with sleek, angular styling..

[post="30149"][/post]

I think it's the front that really strikes the resemblance chord with me.





I see it more of an evolution thing. Kind of like how you can tell that a '06 Deville is related to a '84 Deville... but one is obviously older then the other.

[Robert Hall]

Honeslty.....how many of you are touching your dash on a regular basis? I always see so many people saying things like "oh but the dash feel bad."

Steering wheel, shifter, radio controls, HVAC.....sure you're touching those all the time. Outside of cleaning the car, who the hell is touching their dash?!?  :lol:

True...I don't touch the nice squishy dash in my Jeep everyday, but I do notice the hard plastic center console and door panels.. at least the arm rest on the door and center console are softish..

Now for an ugly dash material (not necessarily the feel, but the texturing), the Cadillac CTS takes the cake...it's got the wierdest texturing I've seen on a new car..

[BrewSwillis]

Honeslty.....how many of you are touching your dash on a regular basis? I always see so many people saying things like "oh but the dash feel bad."

Steering wheel, shifter, radio controls, HVAC.....sure you're touching those all the time. Outside of cleaning the car, who the hell is touching their dash?!?  :lol:

[post="30161"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's really how I feel too. I think way to many people are interior snobs. They don't like a particular vehicle, so they say the interior has hard plastic, and therefore sucks.

[Robert Hall]

That's really how I feel too.  I think way to many people are interior snobs.  They don't like a particular vehicle, so they say the interior has hard plastic, and therefore sucks.

I'll admit I've gotten spoiled by experience with BMW, Audi and Lexus interiors.. I like their materials, design, and way they are put together..(esp. Audi... I don't really like where BMW is going compared to the pre-Bangle era interiors).

Too many rental cars with nasty gray plastic interiors has turned me off on most GM interiors, though I do know they are getting better...

I'm turned off by cheap-looking and cheap-feeling interiors--esp. on a $30-40k or more car..it's one thing to have a cheap interior in a cheap car, but in a $30k or more vehicle, it's a real turn off, IMHO. Edited October 17, 2005 by moltar

[BrewSwillis]

Dash plastics in the LX cars are all the same regardless of trim level (2.7L up to 300C.)

The only real trim difference on the dash, etc., is the trim surrounding the center stack (eg...fake woodgrain, silver "aluminum" trim, etc.)

Dash tops and door panels are all the same.

[post="30131"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Well, the same applies to the CTS, but they start at $30K. 300's start at $23K. Maybe the 300's dash isn't as nice as the CTS, but Chrysler had to do something to get the car to come in at it's $23K price point. Just imagine how much money Chrysler makes when people buy a $34K 300C.

[HarleyEarl]

I give the Commander an A and going Commando an A+. I give the multitude of fake screws a D- and a real screw an A+.

[BrewSwillis]

I'll admit I've gotten spoiled by experience with BMW, Audi and Lexus interiors..  I like their materials, design, and way they are put together..(esp. Audi... I don't really like where BMW is going compared to the pre-Bangle era interiors).

Too many rental cars with nasty gray plastic interiors has turned me off on most GM interiors, though I do know they are getting better...

I'm turned off by cheap-looking and cheap-feeling interiors--esp. on a $30-40k or more car..it's one thing to have a cheap interior in a cheap car, but in a $30k or more vehicle, it's a real turn off, IMHO.

[post="30168"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think you did get spoiled. You can get into a Commander for $27K......but check out BMW's closest competition the X5. You need $42K just to get into one, and you can pay $72K for the top of the line. Shouldn't it stand to reason that the interior will be nicer on a vehicle that's starts at $15K more?

[Robert Hall]

I think you did get spoiled.  You can get into a Commander for $27K......but check out BMW's closest competition the X5.  You need $42K just to get into one, and you can pay $72K for the top of the line.  Shouldn't it stand to reason that the interior will be nicer on a vehicle that's starts at $15K more?

Chrysler's interior quality is declining, though. The interior materials and design in my 5-yr old Grand Cherokee (which was 32k new) IMHO are overall better than those of the new GC.. the new GC dash is ugly and looks and feels cheap..like something out of a $10-15k economy car and not a $35k SUV. Edited October 17, 2005 by moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

Oh wait till a certain someone sees that comment... :rolleyes:

[post="30221"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Eh, I'm not gonna get on him for it. It's not the prettiest out there, but I like it. I'm also not holding up as a standard to be compaired to *unless* it's being compaired to the awful dash material on the 300 and now the Commander. I think the new Mustang even uses this stuff. It just needs to stop.

[KaliRover]

I actually don't mind this interior. Especially for the Jeep trails I go on, I wouldn't want something too nice... lol.

[Robert Hall]

Eh, I'm not gonna get on him for it.  It's not the prettiest out there, but I like it. I'm also not holding up as a standard to be compaired to *unless* it's being compaired to the awful dash material on the 300 and now the Commander. I think the new Mustang even uses this stuff. It just needs to stop.

I think the CTS dash and IP design is good, it's just the material is wierd looking and textured, IMHO. Definitely of better quality, though, than the current Chrysler interiors...

I like the design of the new Mustang interior but some of the plastics are pretty cheap... ok on a sub-$20k V6 coupe, but less so on a $35k GT convertible, IMHO.... Edited October 17, 2005 by moltar

[Cory Wolfe]

Man, how do they get away with such a cheap interior?
:rolleyes:

[post="30067"][/post]

Like I said... Cheap and Horrible looking. Just like the new Grand Cherokee. I absolutely hate each of these interiors. Complete and total design disasters, IMO. Again, I just don't like it. The design is what makes it look cheap. No matter how much wood, chrome, metal, contrast, etc. you put in it, the design will still make it look cheap to me. Ugh...

That's really how I feel too. I think way to many people are interior snobs. They don't like a particular vehicle, so they say the interior has hard plastic, and therefore sucks.

I feel the same as well. I could care less how the damn dash feels as long as it looks good and the things that I touch on a regular basis aren't cheap. Of course... this coming from a Pontiac fan... :rolleyes: :P

[The O.C.]

Well, the same applies to the CTS, but they start at $30K.  300's start at $23K.  Maybe the 300's dash isn't as nice as the CTS, but Chrysler had to do something to get the car to come in at it's $23K price point.  Just imagine how much money Chrysler makes when people buy a $34K 300C.

[post="30172"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Are you kidding?

The $23K 300's interior is SUPERIOR to the CTS'. Now, I don't have a particular problem with the CTS, in fact I like the style of the interior.

BUT, the fit-and-finish and materials inside the 300 blows away the strange-grain dash and door panels on the CTS, and the hard, brittle, and hollow plastic on the center stack and console of the CTS.

Once again....the LX cars DON'T use the same materials as the Jeep and Dodge trucks...! Edited October 17, 2005 by The O.C.

[Croc]

disagree O.C.... CTS has pretty good materials, but the design is lacking.

[MyerShift]

I've noticed the inferior plastics on the new Grand Cherokee as well. Compared to the dash plastics in the previous generation Grand Cherokee, they feel and sound worse than Cavalier grade, even if better put together. The previous Grand Cherokee's dash was very nice, with matte, soft texture plastics versus the new Grand Cherokee's rock hard, hollow sounding dash. I wonder if it's just part of that "Chrysler must be inferior to our Mercedes-Benz products, and therefore should have the worst interiors possible. That will keep them under us". I don't know, it just seems like Mercedes looks down at Chrysler. I would say that it is probably out of jealousy. I mean, from what I understand, Chrysler's autos were more reliable in the late 1990's than Mercedes's were. I've also come across the statement that Mercedes felt that Chrysler only built boxy, unappealing cars. In the `80's yes, but everyone did. And Mercedes STILL does. But they bought out Chrysler in 1998. That was when the second generation LH cars debuted, and they and their immediate predecessors had (have) far more style than any Mercedes sedan made at the same time. Mercedes's sedans are still far from swoopy, excluding the self-proclaimed "four-door coupe" CLS-Class. Who is Stuttgart kidding?

[The O.C.]

disagree O.C....

CTS has pretty good materials, but the design is lacking.

[post="30386"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Croc, I am 180 degrees from you.....

The CTS design ITSELF is what I find quite attractive....and unique in its class.

It's the crappy plastics that let it down. The "dot-matrix" dash and door panels are just plain wierd and do not feel upscale...and the hard, brittle plastic around the center stack and floor console is inexcusable.

Comfy seats, nice leather, and a stylish design make up for the crappy materials somewhat in my mind....but the Caddy deserves better.

[Drew Dowdell]

Croc, I am 180 degrees from you.....

The CTS design ITSELF is what I find quite attractive....and unique in its class.

It's the crappy plastics that let it down.  The "dot-matrix" dash and door panels are just plain wierd and do not feel upscale...and the hard, brittle plastic around the center stack and floor console is inexcusable.

Comfy seats, nice leather, and a stylish design make up for the crappy materials somewhat in my mind....but the Caddy deserves better.

[post="30658"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

As a CTS owner, I wouldn't describe the center stack brittle at all. Sure it's hard, but so is the plood around the center stack of my partner's Passat. As far as interiors go, I'd rate the CTS and Passat about equal in design. The Passat may have higher quality looking materials, but the CTS is holding up much better then the Passat is. We constantly have little bits of interior popping off the Passat. I'm sure the parts falling off the VW are of the highest German quality.... but what do I know, I only live with both cars every day.

[Satty]

Has Chrysler ever come out with fake wood that doesn't look really strange? Every Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep that has fake wood has the stuff that looks really fucked up, and not in a good way.

[pow]

Croc, I am 180 degrees from you.....

The CTS design ITSELF is what I find quite attractive....and unique in its class.

It's the crappy plastics that let it down.  The "dot-matrix" dash and door panels are just plain wierd and do not feel upscale...and the hard, brittle plastic around the center stack and floor console is inexcusable.

Comfy seats, nice leather, and a stylish design make up for the crappy materials somewhat in my mind....but the Caddy deserves better.

[post="30658"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hmm... I wonder where I fit in. I generally like the design of the CTS interior, much more so than the generic 300's, and while its materials are ordinary, I still prefer them to the 300's. I suppose if you compare part against part, the rubbery upper-dash material of the 300 is richer than the CTS's dox-matrix material, but because Chrysler tastelessly dwarfs half the interior with it, I get an overall aura of cheapness and drabness.

Cadillac can easily change the CTS's interior from cheesy techno to elegantly cool, IMO. Its dash is a good slate for a liberal use of matte woods, fresh colors, and frosty-looking aluminum.

[pow]

As a CTS owner, I wouldn't describe the center stack brittle at all. Sure it's hard, but so is the plood around the center stack of my partner's Passat. As far as interiors go, I'd rate the CTS and Passat about equal in design. The Passat may have higher quality looking materials, but the CTS is holding up much better then the Passat is. We constantly have little bits of interior popping off the Passat. I'm sure the parts falling off the VW are of the highest German quality.... but what do I know, I only live with both cars every day.

[post="30674"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Keep in mind the old Passat was introduced in 1998 and that it costs $10K less than a CTS. The new one is improved in many ways and comes closer to BMW/Audi-quality.

[Drew Dowdell]

Keep in mind the old Passat was introduced in 1998 and that it costs $10K less than a CTS. The new one is improved in many ways and comes closer to BMW/Audi-quality.

[post="30765"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Maybe the 2005s, but the 2006 is a huge step back for VW. My partner and I have already been to see the new Passat and walked away thinking "Well, stratch that, now what will we replace the Passat with?" Hugely disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I like the '02 my partner has. I'll just never hold it up as a model of quality that everyone else seems to.

[pow]

Maybe the 2005s, but the 2006 is a huge step back for VW. My partner and I have already been to see the new Passat and walked away thinking "Well, stratch that, now what will we replace the Passat with?" Hugely disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I like the '02 my partner has. I'll just never hold it up as a model of quality that everyone else seems to.

[post="30781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, the new Passat seems to be either a love-it or hate-it car, much like the new BMWs. VW has moved away from their simple (but often stodgy) styling to something more irrational and emotional, but many complain that it doesn't look European enough. I find the new Fusion to be in line with the old Passat, character-wise.

[Cremazie]

Maybe the 2005s, but the 2006 is a huge step back for VW. My partner and I have already been to see the new Passat and walked away thinking "Well, stratch that, now what will we replace the Passat with?" Hugely disappointed. Don't get me wrong, I like the '02 my partner has. I'll just never hold it up as a model of quality that everyone else seems to.

[post="30781"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The new Jetta has nowhere near the appeal that the old one had. My friend owns a 2002 Jetta and went to look at the new model and told me that he thought that this Jetta was more like a Japanese car than a German car.

[Croc]

I love the new VWs. So rich looking.

[Drew Dowdell]

The Pheaton maybe.... the rest? Eh..

[regfootball]

I love the new VWs.  So rich looking.

[post="30849"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

make sure you look at the MSRP too, of course its rich looking for a compact, 150hp car, when the MSRP is north of 25 grand.