Page 1 of 1

Jeep Comander

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:16 pm
by Merzbow
I saw a Jeep Comander on the way to work a couple weeks ago. Here is a brief pic of it. I think it looks descent...I wouldn't buy one, it's about the size of a Navigator I believe, maybe a bit smaller.

Attached files

Re: Jeep Comander (Merzbow)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:25 pm
by ColonelPanic
Eww... I wouldn't buy or drive one either, then again I have absolutely no use for SUV's. Looking at the pic, it looks like Jeep jumped onto the retro bandwagon bigtime with this thing. Is it just me, or did they take that friggin' Cherokee that was around since '84 or so that finally went away a couple years ago and pumped it full of steroids to make this thing? (removed)!Blah, they can keep it.

219499=7891-cherokee.jpg

Re: Jeep Comander (ColonelPanic)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:04 pm
by Merzbow
I dunno man, I like Cherokees that are built up...a group of them around my house, two are white, one is black. They all have snorkles that go to the roof and 6 inch lifts with atleast 38 inch tires. Very awsome looking machines.

Re: Jeep Comander (Merzbow)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:48 pm
by ColonelPanic
It just doesn't do it for me... I'm severely lacking testosterone, I guess. Although I will say one of those Cherokees brought me the 25 miles from work when we had umpteen inches of snow and ice and I couldn't get that stupid Vibe out of the parking lot.

Re: Jeep Comander (ColonelPanic)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:58 pm
by drunkenmaxx
looks kind of like a land rova homeboy.

Re: Jeep Comander (Merzbow)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 10:02 pm
by cieglo
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugly.Of course, it could be: boxy but good.

Re: Jeep Comander (Merzbow)

Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 10:39 pm
by gargoyle
They must be going for functionality because as far as style <<insert dry heave gagging sound here>> it's ugly... not streamline, not refined, no styling, just a clunky box on wheels. Heck, even that little Scion box on wheels has more style than this. (I know they're a completely different class of vehicle, but I'm just talking about styling, not function or power.) This SUV might be able to haul a load through the wilderness or up a mountain, but it won't look good doing it.

Re: Jeep Comander (gargoyle)

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:54 am
by Mavrik
looks like a boxy land rover...

Re: Jeep Comander (Mavrik)

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:58 am
by Merzbow
Land Rovers are naturally boxy That must make the Comander a Boxy(squared) SUV.

Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:53 pm
by WVRedneck
Jeep went straight to hell when DC dropped the XJ in favor of the KJ. It won't be long until they kill the TJ to cater to the urban `wheelers.

Re: Jeep Comander (Merzbow)

Posted: Sun Aug 07, 2005 7:27 am
by ToolGuy
This Jeep has new sheet metal on it but under that it is a Grand Cherokee. It shares lots of the same parts as the Grand Cherokee. I heard Jeep brought this to market because many people wanted the older square boxy look like the very old Wagoneer and Cherokee Classic, the boxy one made from 1982 to 2000 or 2001, I forget.

Re: Jeep Comander (MiVibe-ToolGuy)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:13 am
by soldierguy
It is a Grand Cherokee underneath...same engines, transmissions, 4WD systems, even a lot of the interior is the same. Given all that, it'll offer similar off and on road driving experiences to the Grand Cherokee (this is a good thing...trust me...my Grand Cherokee is a great vehicle to drive).Jeep intentionally did the Grand Cherokee and the Commander separate. A lot of SUVs are just plain HUGE to accomodate a 3rd row of seats. There's no way a 3rd row could fit into a Grand Cherokee because the floor is too high (to accomodate the live rear axle), the roofline is too low and the length is too short (both to keep the Grand a reasonable size). The Commander gives Jeep an entry into the 7-passenger SUV segment without making the Grand Cherokee larger than it needs to be.I'm not a fan of the styling though...it's too big and boxy. If Jeep had made the Grand Cherokee and Commander as one vehicle rather than two distinct vehicles, I wouldn't have bought it. The result would have been too big, and honestly I'm biased against vehicles that have 7 passenger capability since I don't need or even want that capability. As it is though, Jeep has the Grand Cherokee to keep people like me happy, and it now has the Commander for people who want a Jeep but need the 7 passenger capability.

Re: (WVRedneck)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:18 am
by soldierguy
Quote, originally posted by WVRedneck »Jeep went straight to hell when DC dropped the XJ in favor of the KJ. It won't be long until they kill the TJ to cater to the urban `wheelers.I think Jeep will always have a vehicle like the TJ (Wrangler). The Wrangler is the slowest-selling Jeep, but it's an icon that's couldn't be built to please the masses and still be a hard-core off-roader right off the showroom floor. In my mind vehicles like the KJ (Liberty), WK (Grand Cherokee), and now the XK (Commander) enable Jeep to sell enough vehicles to remain a viable company, yet still offer an icon like the Wrangler.

Re: (soldierguy)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:08 am
by Merzbow
Ok, I saw 3 Commanders on the way home today and one of them was black. Honestly after seeing them I actually like them alot now. I would never buy one, but I do like them, especially in black with the chrome trim. Looks very sharp. The pic I took makes them look really tall and gumpy but if you saw it in person frmo the side it looks way better.

Re: (Merzbow)

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:52 pm
by ToolGuy
Yup they are not bad in person. Inside they are, well different as far as seating and visibility.