In 2010, Jeep walked away from the three-row market. Their first attempt at a three-row SUV, the Commander, arrived just before a tumultuous period in its corporate parent’s history that culminated in Chrysler declaring bankruptcy. Like almost every Mopar product of the era, the Commander rapidly haemorrhaged sales. Unlike a large number of Mopar products, however, there was no Fiat-mandated refresh and the Commander was stood down. Jeep is only now about to return to the segment, a decade later. Let’s hope it does better this time.
Lest you think the Commander was merely an unfortunate victim of circumstance, its sales only declining because of its parent’s well-publicized struggles and the implosion of the SUV market, I must remind you this was a Chrysler product of the early 21st century. It had flaws.
You can put all Mopars of this era on a spectrum of market competitiveness and general competence. A Chrysler 300 or Dodge Charger/Magnum is at the good end of the spectrum – there’s some underwhelming engine choices, cheap interior materials and less-than-stellar reliability, but you’ve got a fundamentally good car. Smack-bang at the other side of the spectrum is the ’07 Chrysler Sebring, woefully uncompetitive with its rivals and reeking of cost-cutting and corporate malaise.
So, where does the Commander sit? It is based on the Grand Cherokee, after all, which means it had a fundamentally good foundation. But it was a flawed and misguided product, which led to the late, great FCA CEO Sergio Marchionne declaring after its axing:
“That car was unfit for human consumption. We sold some. But I don’t know why people bought them.”
Alas, the Commander’s mission was to provide comfortable transport for seven passengers. At that, it failed miserably. The Commander wasn’t the first SUV or crossover to have an uncomfortable third row and it certainly won’t be the last but it should’ve been packaged a lot better.
The Commander looked huge but it really wasn’t. The Commander measured just 1.9 inches longer than a Grand Cherokee and used the same 109.5-inch wheelbase. That meant it was actually almost 5 inches shorter than a Ford Explorer.
If Jeep was trying to avoid significant chassis revisions in order to get a three-row SUV to market quickly, why then did they spend a great deal of money differentiating the Commander from the Grand Cherokee? A Ford Explorer offered three rows in the same body as the two-row model; a Chevrolet TrailBlazer EXT or GMC Envoy XL had a different body only aft of the B-pillars. Instead of giving the Grand Cherokee a stretched wheelbase and independent rear suspension – the latter of which would arrive in the ’11 WK2 – Chrysler instead went to the considerable expense of designing a new interior and exterior and marketing the Commander as an entirely different model line.
Like the TrailBlazer EXT and Envoy XL, the Commander’s roof was raised 3.2 inches above the third row. This was ostensibly to give third row occupants a better view (“theatre-style seating”) but may have been dictated by the five-link solid rear axle. The higher floor of the Commander’s third row, coupled with its limited legroom, made occupants extremely uncomfortable; second row legroom was reduced by half an inch compared to the Grand Cherokee. And with all three rows up, there was just 7.5 cubic feet of cargo volume. At least the rear two rows could be folded flat.
Jeep’s gotten quite good at the details lately, including dotting little easter eggs throughout their vehicles, but the Commander’s interior was marred by an abundance of faux Allen head bolts to match those on the flared wheel arches. It was an attempt to look rugged and instead it just looked cheap. Perhaps you’ll disagree. Otherwise, the interior was typical mid-2000s Chrysler.
Not everybody uses the third row of their SUV and, if they do, it’s often for small children. Giving loyal Jeep buyers this option was wise and, surprisingly, the MSRP of the base 2WD 3.7 Commander was just a few hundred dollars more than the like-for-like Grand Cherokee. Where owners paid the price was in fuel economy. Again, comparing 3.7 2WD versions of each Jeep, the Commander was rated at 14/18 mpg (16 combined) while the Grand Cherokee managed 15/21 mpg (17 combined). The brick-like shape of the Commander resulted in brick-like aerodynamics and highway gas mileage clearly suffered for it, though the margin was narrower in the 4WD V8 models. And though some rivals were switching to six-speed autos, every Commander had a five-speed automatic.
The Commander’s extra 300 pounds of curb weight over the Grand also affected fuel economy and blunted performance. These were heavy trucks – the base 2WD Commander weighed around 4500 pounds, 4WD adding 200 and the top-spec Limited 4WD topping out at over 5000 pounds. The standard 3.7 PowerTech V6 was a waste of time – with just 210 hp and 235 ft-lbs, it had its work cut out hauling the heavy Commander around. The 4.7 PowerTech V8 had more torque (290 ft-lbs) but its 235 horses were lousy compared to rival trucks from Ford and GM, both of which had almost 300 hp in their V8 variants. Best to go with the legendary 5.7 Hemi V8 which produced 330 hp and a mighty 370 ft-lbs while surrendering only 1 mpg in fuel economy. By that point you were looking at over $40k for your Commander as the Hemi was only available in the Limited and, later, Overland models.
Overseas markets, like Europe and Australia, had an optional Mercedes-Benz sourced 3.0 CRD turbodiesel producing 218 hp and a Hemi-beating 376 ft-lbs of torque. Without this diesel option, the Commander would have been DOA in those markets. Not that it sold very well in either market but at least the CRD gave it a chance.
Like the Grand Cherokee, the Commander was available with multiple different 4WD systems. 3.7 models had Quadra-Trac I, a full-time 4WD system. Quadra-Trac II was available on V8 models and added a two-speed active transfer case. Finally, Quadra-Drive II added electronic limited slip differentials to the front and rear axles. The Commander could therefore tackle the rough stuff with aplomb and yet it was rather refined and manoeuvrable on the road. The IRS-equipped Explorer was widely regarded as having better ride quality but the Commander was referred to as nimble by some automotive journalists, although others found its handling to be frightening in emergency maneuvers.
The exterior tapped the same XJ Cherokee well as the Patriot and second-generation Liberty. Though the XJ was an iconic design, none of this boxy triad were especially hot sellers relative to other Jeeps – the Patriot eventually played second-fiddle to the Compass and wasn’t renewed for another generation, the 2G Liberty sold half as well as its predecessor, and the Commander flamed out quickly. Outside of the Wrangler, Jeep would learn they did better pursuing a sleeker, more modern and more upscale look for their vehicles.
The Commander received some worthwhile improvements during its short run. In 2008, the 4.7 V8 was extensively modified and gained 70 (!) extra horses and 44 extra pound-feet of torque. The following year, the Hemi gained 30 horses and 20 extra pound-feet of torque. However, the Commander’s third row became an option in 2008. Were there really that many buyers who wanted the extra weight and fuel consumption of the Commander without the third row?
Jeep sold 88,497 Commanders in 2006. The following year, sales were down 29%. In 2008, they were down by half again and Chrysler led the disgraced Commander to the firing squad. Also executed around this time were the Chrysler Crossfire, PT Cruiser and Pacifica and the Dodge Magnum.
This probably should’ve been a Jeep
Jeep has been working on new Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer flagships for some time and these are slated to be launched soon. These big, body-on-frame SUVs may also be accompanied by a three-row version of the unibody Grand Cherokee. Why Jeep didn’t roll out a three-row Grand Cherokee with the WK2 redesign of 2011 is anybody’s guess, FCA instead giving the three-row version of that platform to Dodge as the Durango and therefore forgoing any major export sales.
The lack of a three-row SUV was keenly felt in China, where FCA has tooled up a new crossover called the Jeep Grand Commander. Based on the Compact Wide/CUSW platform underpinning the Cherokee, the Grand Commander is a decidedly on-road focussed Jeep fractionally smaller than a GMC Acadia. Allegedly, the Grand Commander may soon be built in the US and slot into the Chrysler brand’s tiny line-up.
Though it had the charm and off-road ability of most other Jeep, the Commander was certainly a misfire, an ill-conceived and poorly-executed attempt at a three-row SUV. Instead of engineering an SUV with a comfortable third row, Jeep perplexingly tried to wedge one into a Grand Cherokee-sized truck yet went to the effort of giving it an extreme makeover. A Grand Cherokee with a moderately comfortable third row was all that was really needed and yet Jeep over-compensated and under-delivered. Unfit for human consumption? Certainly for those in the third row.
Commanders photographed in Prague Castle, Czechia and Charlottenburg, Germany in September 2018.
Related Reading:
Top 10 Obscure Special Editions And Forgotten Limited-Run Models: Jeep-Eagle Edition, Part I
COAL: 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee – Stepping Up
My Mom’s Ex-COAL: 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo – Rotor Eater
The Commander had such ungainly proportions. You’re right in highlighting that it looked much larger than it really was. I always likened these to being the poor man’s Land Rover LR3, sharing characteristics such as stadium seating 3 rows, interior design, some exterior styling cues, and the obvious off-road capability.
I knew several people who owned these, including my cousin. I don’t know anyone who bought one of these that wasn’t a seasoned Jeep owner and loyalist.
Also, funnily enough I remember the Jeep Commander being featured in the music video for Missy Elliott’s “Lose Control” prior to it being released. While searching for it, I found that Missy subsequently did commercials for the Commander 🙂 Still such a great song though, and one I still listen to daily.
You know you messed up when your marketing team only shows interior pictures of the sunroof and GPS system in a thirty second advertisement.
Missy Elliott, this song, and this commercial are all *fire*. I can’t believe I’ve never seen this before!
At the time, my commute ran straight through “auto row” as well as past several gas stations. The first couple Commanders showed up in front of the (then still freestanding) Jeep dealership the same week as the first of what would be several major spikes in gas prices. Quite possibly the worst timing of any new-car launch since the Edsel.
I’d nominate the Kia Borrego as worse. At least Jeep had an established history of producing gas-guzzling SUV’s so this was not as shocking as a V-8 powered BOF SUV available for retail sale at the same place that desperate people applied for 72 month financing for a subcompact car. Funny thing that FCA looked at that business model and said to themselves “we want to attract desperate people too to purchase all of these Journeys.”
I also remember Chrysler offering free gas for 12 months and a lifetime powertrain warranty on these Commanders during the depths of the recession. It is a sad commentary on your business model when you offer those incentives and most people still buy the CRV or Pilot instead.
Not to hate on FCA too much though, my mom loves her Dodge Charger. I believe that they offer a good value for anyone looking to purchase a full size rear wheel drive sedan. I would have liked to have found a Magnum for her but those have all been driven in to the ground or are garage queens. There are no middle ground “CarMax” quality Magnums left.
I thought about the Kia Borrego as having topped it within a year, just a second too late and I didn’t get an “edit” box (weirdly I’m seeing one on *your* comment…I registered with WordPress but for some reason didn’t get a confirmation email…)
Looking at completely dispassionately, who really is more “desperate” – is it the person applying for a 72month loan for an inexpensive subcompact (who appears to be wanting to purchase a practical vehicle with at least some modicum of reliability) or the person applying for a 72month loan for this large luxury Jeep that doesn’t do much of anything all that well compared to much of its competition but has the “right” label?
This was developed during a period where DCA seemed to throw every product it could at the wall, to see what stuck.
I’m sure there are others, but some examples are the Jeep Compass and the similar Patriot, the Pacifica and the similarly sized Magnum (and why wasn’t the Magnum simply a Charger wagon?), and no less than three different versions of tops for the Sebring convertible, when one would’ve sufficed (yes, the Sebring was launched by Chrysler, LLC, but it was developed by DCA).
I’m not sure what is worse: No product in a category, or bad product in a category.
When launched, the Patriot was “aimed” for male buyers while the Compass was “aimed” for female buyers. Chrysler’s press releases said as much. It was a simpler time.
The Magnum was launched a model year before the Charger. There was not supposed to be a Charger at all but the independent Dodge dealers complained when the Neon and Intrepid were axed and replaced with the hatchback Caliber and Magnum. They thought that traditional sedan buyers would go somewhere else instead of purchasing the Status/Avenger (the only sedan Dodge had remaining) so the Charger was hurried into production. Dodge even christened their NASCAR COT with the Avenger name the year that they ran a mixed schedule with the old body.
I agree with you on the convertibles, not only could you purchase two different Sebring convertibles but a PT Cruiser convertible, Dodge Viper convertible, Chrysler Crossfire convertible, Jeep Wrangler convertible, and Jeep Liberty Sky Slider convertible. Holy open roof, Batman!
Oddly never a Challenger convertible though…what gives?
I don’t think anyone ever intentionally cross-shopped a Pacifica and Magnum. They clearly had different missions despite having almost the same footprint.
Good observations, and I agree about the different missions. I guess my overarching point was if you can build one really good vehicle, or two mediocre vehicles of similar size, why not choose to have one solid player in the size segment?
I’m male but liked the Compass a whole lot better than the Patriot.
Hmm. And let’s not forget about the Liberty and Nitro twins.
Their lineup now makes more sense. The Renegade is their entry-level, subcompact product (a market that didn’t exactly exist back then) and is stylized to look like a baby Wrangler.
The Patriot (which looked an *awful* lot like the XJ Cherokee) and Compass were unified into the current Compass, which is their compact offering.
The Cherokee replaced the Liberty as their midsize offering, and adopted a FWD-based unibody platform, which makes more sense for its clientele.
The Grand Cherokee remains their top offering where luxury is concerned.
And the Wrangler is a Wrangler.
They may have had more failures than successes, but at least it was interesting I suppose.
Friends purchased a Commander in 2007-8 to replace an older Suburban. Their purchase decision was largely based on the substantial discounts and rebate incentives offered by Jeep/Chrysler at the time.
After about 3 months they realized that they made a huge mistake. The Commander was an unreliable, uncomfortable gas-guzzler; and had been back to the dealer multiple times for driveability issues.
In less than a year, they took a huge loss on the Commander when they traded it for a 3-4 year old Suburban similar to the one they owned previously.
The idea had promise, the exexution, not so much. Interesting that you seem to find more of these far from its homeland than I do here in Jeep Central. Both of them look to be in impeccable condition too.
I remember reading in Consumer Reports around 2009 that this vehicle was, by a hefty margin, the least likely for it’s owner to buy again. This boxy Jeep also had one of the worse mileage ratings, it’s debut on the market was poorly timed as it was just before Wall Street started to manipulate oil & food prices (the later contributing to the Arab Spring).
Disagree that Wall Street directly manipulated oil prices. OPEC does that.
However, oil is priced in USD worldwide so when the Wall Street prime and sub-prime housing market crashed and the stock market crashed along with it, then the dollar exchange rate crashed as a result.
I still believe that if OPEC had purposefully taken a loss for five or so years to stabilize the gas and oil markets it would have been better for them in the long run because then Tesla and Prius would never have never gotten the traction and demand necessary to develop this new electric and hybrid world that we are marching toward. Also, it would have been more likely (not for sure) that McCain or another Republican would have won in 2008 and we would have not had Cash for Clunkers or 7,500 rebates on electric vehicles. Even a Clinton win in 2008 and we might not have had those programs either.
Overall though if the way it actually played out was necessary I believe that there will be long term benefits for the USA in energy independence and reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions though other developing countries may out-pace our emission reductions it is still better than us polluting at the levels we had been pre-2008.
I have never driven an electric car or hybrid yet but I am not opposed to them as long there is infrastructure available to support nationwide travel and recharging times become faster.
How soon we forget!
All three US brands that were dependent upon SUVs and trucks – (that is, all of them), were at a loss when the market collapsed and bankruptcies loomed everywhere. Saturn, Oldsmobile, Mercury, Pontiac, HUMMER, Saab – (who else?) – gone.
Not only were the foreign makes eating US lunch regarding sedans, but it looked like everyone needed an electric vehicle. These were very trying times for Detroit.
So we see Detroit trying to shoot magic bullets with similar vehicles based upon what they could assemble. Ford had several SUV vehicles, all vying for success, Chrysler had several vehicles, and old GM had a new full size SUV that looked like the wrong sized product at the wrong time, while wooing Congress with promises of an electric Volt in return for a bailout.
This vehicle was one of many half-baked, half-thought-through emergency vehicles. No one knew what the future held.
This.
With a few exceptions, the Detroit brands made some pretty crappy cars. When SUV and truck sales came crashing down in 2008 and 2009, Detroit mostly had nothing to sell that people wanted to buy.
Funnily enough, though, this did help the Caliber. Hindsight tells us that it was a terrible car, but at one point in time during the gas crisis, it had a waiting list and people were snatching up every one they could buy.
But mostly, this time period (and the Cash for Clunkers program) helped foreign automakers. Volkswagen made serious traction with its then-new Clean Diesel cars, which promised significant fuel economy (through cheating, it turned out). Hyundai and Kia were by this time making reasonably handsome, dependable cars, and people flocked to them in droves. The Prius became ever more popular, as did mainstays like the Civic and Corolla.
Detroit responded with competitive “world” cars, especially in the compact arena. The 2011 Cruze was perhaps the first good small GM car…ever…for the American market. The 2012 Focus looked, felt and drove upscale. And while the 2013 Dart was an excellent effort, it wasn’t profitable for FCA.
Detroit got lucky though.
The market has been in their wheelhouse for the past decade, while the foreign brands have been hustling for their versions of big SUVs.
History shows that Detroit would have chased after the small car/electric car market just in time to miss the SUV/Truck boom.
Fortunately, that didn’t happen. That big seemingly useless new GM big SUV that struggled its Freshman year, ended up saving them by becoming a Chevy Traverse and as a Buick Enclave during the current SUV boom. The Dodge Durango? Old and obsolete, but still selling.
Few industry forecasters were predicting the current SUV/Truck boom back in 2009. Uh – no one actually.
Those little cars that were supposed to save Detroit? Gone!
Nearly identical dimensions to my 4Runner, but heavier and with the late-2000s Mopar build quality that was so enjoyable in the Jeep Liberty and the added bonus of powertrains that were either overly weak or overly thirsty.
FYI, site is still eating/disappearing comments and I’ve been logged in.
They sold a few of these hideosities here in Oz. At least some of the horror was slightly ameliorated by the availability of 3.0 diesel (Mercedes, at a guess), so at least you didn’t go broke on fuel bills as well as the repair bills. But neither was a brilliant combination with the repayments on a $60K vehicle in 2006.
Putting aside the awkwardness of its birth and the inadequacy of the product in general, this car is interesting for illustrating the real difficulties of getting styling right.
Imagine you had to describe this to someone: you would likely conjure up a G-wagen, or an enlarged Cherokee, possibly a Landrover or maybe an old Nissan Patrol. Bluff fronts, square edges, tall glasshouses, flat windows, big flares (often), a separate mudguard look at front. And yet each of those are quite good-looking units, whereas this is just awful, the very same ideas failing utterly as a whole. Too tall? Too skinny? Too like a clumsy cheap toy? I don’t know, it needs someone with a better eye than me to define it properly, but it proves starkly how it is that, with styling, near can be so very far.
Agreed. Jeep was clearly trying to channel the look of the classic XJ Cherokee, with some cues from more modern Jeeps as well, but the look was just off and a bit malproportioned.
I never understood these….I have a 2014 GC I bought new and love it, but I don’t know who would have bought this cramped box.
I agree that Jeep made a colassal blunder making the current larger three row variant a Durango. I really liked the greater interior room and third row of the Durango when I was shopping in late 2013, but my decision was made by an offhand comment the saleman made regarding resale: “Who wants a used Dodge? Nobody. Who wants a used Jeep? Everybody”.
So I bought the Jeep.
I think you also have to take into account the Hummer-esque styling that DaimlerChrysler put on these. They looked a lot more ostentatious than a Grand Cherokee, and I bet they *thought* that would be a selling proposition.
It wasn’t.
Meanwhile, I didn’t know that the WK Grand Cherokee had an independent front suspension but a solid-axle rear suspension. That would mean it didn’t get an independent rear suspension until the current WK2 generation, which debuted in 2011 (and which the Daimler side borrowed for the 2012-2019 M/GLE-Class and 2013-2019 GL/GLS-Class).
Great piece, Will! I learned a lot about these, whereas before I knew pretty much nothing.
Around the time these came out, I remember asking myself what their mission was. I know now that it was the three-rows, relative to the Grand Cherokee.
Did Chrysler really have money to burn at the time on designing a completely new interior and exterior for what was essentially a stretched Grand Cherokee?
I remember really starting to worry about Chrysler Corporation around this time, after reading many negative opinions about “cheapness” and questionable styling.
And Marchionne’s mouth! That man was a straight shooter. LOL
And Marchionne’s mouth! That man was a straight shooter. LOL
So true! RIP Sergio Marchionne.
“The exterior tapped the same XJ Cherokee well as the Patriot and second-generation Liberty. Though the XJ was an iconic design, none of this boxy triad were especially hot sellers relative to other Jeeps…Jeep would learn they did better pursuing a sleeker, more modern and more upscale look for their vehicles.”
I have to admit I would have shared Chrysler”s view that echoing Dick Teague’s aesthetic for the wildly successful 1984-2001 XJ Cherokee would be a safe bet. Retro was a big deal in the mid-2000’s with the Mustang and T-Bird.
Maybe the lack of stylistic differentiation between Jeep models and presence of awkward-looking grilles ruined this appeal (aside from the weaknesses pointed out in the article).
I would say that those weren’t cars that you bought based on their value.
Instead, a Commander was to be bought based on a mix of Jeep’s offroad clout and the Hummer-esque looks. At least that’s how it worked in Europe.
I’m really surprised that no one else has made the Hummer connection. Daimler figured the market for the Hummer (with its joke of a 3rd row seat) would be all over the just-as-bad Commander.
Unfortunately for Daimler, their timing was horrible; the Commander began hitting showrooms just as gas prices spiked due to Hurricane Katrina. Even if the Commander hadn’t been wretched in virtually all aspects, it would have tanked, anyway (the same eventual fate as the once successful Hummer).
Commander, I so wanted it to be a modern day Grand Wagoneer but it just wasn’t. This is what I think of when I think Commander (warning: violent content):
The Commander always makes me think of Hank too, especially this scene. (Also violent)
https://youtu.be/tRqaluqpllU
Ah, those wacky Salamancas…
Well that was a mistake, not Jeep’s first probably not their last, I have seen one and couldnt quite figure out what it was meant to be now I know,
I bumped into an old mate from our concrete truck days recently he mentioned he’d bought his wife a Jeep apparently it has everything you can think of but has difficulty passing a gas station, with petrol approaching 2.50 per litre here at times I can see why they dont sell very well. She should have got a diesel version.
One area where these seem to still be popular is with tradesmen working construction. A moss green Commander is currently parked in front of my house, associated with the seemingly endless building of a monstrously ugly house two doors down.
It is at least the third one I’ve seen there, I’m going to assume because they are cheap, were likely traded in with low mileage by original owners who hated them, and have that boxy shape to throw tools and materials into.
Of all the bad styling elements the thing has, the worst has to be those grab handles on the rear. I know they were going for a Land Rover look, but it just looks dumb.
A dirt-cheap, work SUV for a contractor to transport and keep their supplies out of the elements is just about the only viable use for one of these I could think of.
It’s a far cry from the original, intended demographic
The demise of the Commander to me was the complete pussification of JEEP by Chrysler. They dumped the Cherokee after 2001, and I for one was glad to see a big boxy Jeep again. Now theyve given the names Cherokee and Renegade to some yuppie ass versions of ugly, indistinguishable piles of plastic. Well see how the Gladiator holds up, but IMHO Chrsyler has all but ruined JEEP.
Very enjoyable article. it just goes to show that even FCA could screw up a money minting brand like Jeep.
I have to say Mike Manley has really turned the brand around – The Cherokee stumbled with its initial intro but has seemed to have found its way. The New Wrangler is a home run, even though its much more expensive. I anticipate the Gladiator will max out its production capacity. Though improved, the only two that are still sub-par are the Renegade and Compass.
Just my opinion but Ford seems to have leaped to the front of the SUV brigade – the new rear drive Explorer looks like a real winner, and Lincoln’s transition to a luxury SUV purveyor is a smart business decision. The new Lincoln SUVs are all nice – and for the first time don’t seem to immediately bring to mind a “tarted up Ford”.
”Very enjoyable article. it just goes to show that even FCA could screw up a money minting brand like Jeep.”
I think DCA (Daimler Chrysler AG) screwed up Jeep more than FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) could ever hope to.
“it just goes to show that even FCA could screw up a money minting brand like Jeep.”
This was all Daimler Chrysler. The only thing FCA did was give up on it as not worth fixing.
One of my top 3 favorite vehicles of all time…have loved them since I wasn’t even driving age and they were coming out. Can’t wait to add one to the collection someday.
Ahhh, the Daimler years. Other than the fouled up concept and the equally fouled up execution it was a pretty good car.
I really wanted to like these. But a 3 row that was an inch longer than the Grand Cherokee? And like almost everything else coming from DC the styling was bad. “Oooo, look at us – we can make a really butch-looking Jeep for suburban moms!” But the suburban moms didn’t want them. Really, it is amazing that the LX platform was as good as it was, because almost everything else from DCA was a disaster. What a waste of a great name for a Jeep.
It is true that this car dropped into the start of the worst car recession since the 1930s, but this one would have been a turkey in a good economy. It really didn’t do anything very well. This car was the product of the really condescending management that seemed unable or unwilling to genuinely understand the American market. “These people are all shallow, stupid, and have way too much money. Let’s build garish crap for them and watch them fall all over themselves to throw their money at us.”
It’s beautiful. It has iconic looks and the hemi. I want a dark green one
I lived and worked in Honolulu, HI between 2009-2010 at a Thrifty Car Rental agency just outside the airport complex, in the shade of the H1 Freeway. Almost our entire fleet comprised Chrysler products, the only exceptions being a good handful of Subaru Imprezas, Mustang convertibles and Lincoln Town Cars. Not surprisingly, those three were our most requested and most reliable vehicles. The rest of the motley crew consisted of dozens of raggedy Chargers, worn out Avengers and Sebrings, a couple Chrysler Aspens, a few Durangos, several Jeep Patriots and Commanders, and a fair number of Chrysler minivans, both Grand Caravan and Town & Country variants. We also had many 300s in stock.
I can’t tell you how many dreaded phone calls I got that went like this–“Yeah, uh, we’re up here on the North Shore of Oahu, and uh, our car won’t start.” (It was a Mopar product–EVERY DAMN TIME!) I shudder to think how much that agency shelled out in tow bills and free rentals because of those heaps of automotive excrement! It’s little wonder the Dollar/Thrifty Group Pacific had to lay people off when the recession hit Hawaii hard. Besides the abysmal reliability, many of our travelers complained about the lack of hatch space in both the Patriots and the Commanders. For all their bulk and heft, there was surprisingly little room in the back of the Commander. What a pig, what a clunker, what a lousy, shitty vehicle! Our guests used to joke all the time with us at the counter, in reference to our fleet heavy with Chrysler products, “Well, SOMEBODY’S gotta keep those bums in business!” I’m sorry–I love Mopar muscle cars and the 1969-1973 Fuselage full-sizers, but let’s face it, they are, and have been, at the bottom of the heap in sales and quality for decades for a good reason–and are the only major US automaker to have to declare bankruptcy–twice. Mother Mopar should be ashamed of herself–her products leave much to be desired in every way.