Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Jeep Commander



  • If you would have taken the time to notice before knee-jerk reacting, the very first line in my post said is was specifically only going to be about the 3rd row seat - in reply to post # 220 titled "At last Check..." which specifically commented on the issue of the 3rd row seat. Take a look at it.

    The excerpt I copied was verbatim from the article as it regarded the 3rd row seat. There are no positive comments re: the 3rd row in my post, because there were no positive comments about the 3rd row in the entire NYT article.

    No vendetta - ( that word's a tad paranoid, don't you think?) - just passing along a reviewer's comments - specifically regarding the 3rd row seat - exactly as I stated it was.

    Too bad you didn't like it.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Paranoid? That is what's happening in the SUV business right now because Jeep is currently selling more Commanders at more demand than supplies, despite it's "lacking" 3rd-row seat. Wish the same could be said about the Explorer, which has a 120 day supply, despite it's freshening for '06. Maybe that's why they're having to fire so many people at their SUV plants.

    Just wondering...... Why did you feel compelled to post half of a review and not all?

    I can remember when Ford redesigned the Explorer/Mountaineer for '02 specifically for it's 3rd-row capability. Well they boasted it to be very comfortable and versatile for adults. NOT. So what's different for the Commander?

    One thing is for sure. You can't carry adults comfortably for long distances in a 3rd row seat in a midsize SUV, no matter what the brand name is.

    I'll be waiting for you to post a review that's more whole-hearted and not some last ditch effort to slam what is otherwise a very good SUV

    (One that I do like preferably)
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    The review paragraph was posted in direct response to a thread about the third row.

    The thing about having a discussion about a vehicle is that people get to comment on the good and bad points. If you don't agree with a post, you can certainly offer a counter opinion, but there's no need to make it personal.

    Steve, Host
  • mark156mark156 Posts: 2,006
    Hey Folks, I attended the San Francisco auto show yesterday and it was awesome. It gave me a chance to compare, yet once again, the Jeep Commander Limited, Volvo XC90 and the Land Rover LR3.

    Probably in about a week and a half, I'll be able to test drive my next potential SUV.

    When I was looking at the Commander, a gentleman that was also looking, flipped the second row seat and climbed into the third row. I looked in and said, "how does it feel back there? He said, "It's perfect if you are five years old". He was kidding of course because he was taller than me and was fitting in just fine (I'm 5'7"). I asked him how did he like the stadium seating and he said he didn't notice it until he sat back there and that it had a nice view and that he could see everything.

    I'm surely in agreement with Justin in that any mid-sized SUV is not going to have the largest third seat. I would say most people use them just on occasion as I would.

    After the Jeep I went to look at the Volvo and it's nice, the third seat seems a little more comfortable but I can't seem to get the second seat mechanism to work right; the opening seems awfully narrow trying to get in the third row. It seems easier to get in the Jeep. Also, the Volvo has very short sun visors.

    Lastly, I checked out the Land Rover LR3. The third seat has the most room as the previous 2 SUV's and is priced about the same as the Volvo but $10,000 more MSRP than the Commander. But, it does offer a few more items like second row heated seats, heated windshield (part of a package), adjustable suspension, etc.

    Like I said in many posts, I like to compare things fully before I jump on it. At this point, I'm leaning towards the LR3. The final decision will come at the test drive.

    Funny thing, I've not seen one Jeep Commander on the road yet (and I'm looking!) I am currently on a 1,000 mile road trip and keeping my eyes peeled to see all three of my choices driving on the road. I've seen more Bentley Continental Flying Spurs than Commanders. And getting a Bentley is rare as hens teeth! :P

    Mark :)
    2010 Land Rover LR4, 2013 Honda CR-V, 2009 Bentley GTC, 1990 MB 500SL, 2001 MB S500, 2007 Lincoln TC, 1964 RR Silver Cloud III, 1995 MB E320 Cab., 2015 Prevost Liberty Coach
  • And while we're on the subject of 3rd row seating, here is Car and Driver's capsule assessment of the Jeep Commander - word-for-word, no edting, no bias, no paranoia (bold emphasis mine):

    "Highs: Hemi power, near-perfect driving position, retro styling.

    Lows: Gun-slit windshield, dismal mileage, cramped third-row seat, numb steering.

    The Verdict: A 5263-pound Jeep Grand Cherokee with theater seating."

    And from Autoweek's review of 10/03/05:

    "...The interior is quite roomy (I really like the seats), though the seats in the way back are for kids only."

    and last , but certainly not least, from our good friends at Edmunds:

    "Pros: Three available engines, excellent off-road ability, balanced handling, simple controls
    Cons: Low-grade interior materials, minimal legroom for third-row seat, mediocre cargo capacity, poor gas mileage with the big V8s"

    Jeep built the Commander to offer a 3rd row seat - something no Jeep ever has offered. Unfortunately, the unanimous opinion from at least 4 professional automotive reviewers (so far) is that it is a basically a kids-only accomplishment. If someone can find a positive professional review commenting on the 3rd row seat, fine. I'd love to read it.

    I have no desire to water-down and cloud the shortcomings of the 3rd row seat with how nice the leather is, or shiny the paint looks. My issue is with the 3rd row and it's inferiority. Period. If you can't stand the criticisms of those who professionaly rate and review cars for a living, that's your problem.

    If an entity such as Edmund's writes a negative comment regarding a specific feature with a car, and other similar comments have been made by other professional sources, than I'm going to open-minded enough to ascertain that it truly should be an issue for me to consider, not get defensive, narrow-minded and lash out because they insulted my point of view (or a car that I just bought). And that's MY problem.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Car and Driver in that November issue picked the Commander OVER the Explorer, yet despite it's so called "shortcomings". Hmm.... let's see why?

    The Explorer
    Highs: Silent cabin, cushy ride, refined drivetrain, can tow 7300 pounds.

    Lows: Invisible styling, dilatory transmission kickdowns, misplaced throttle pedal, odd driving position.

    Verdict: Hugely improved but still the most cautious and mainstream of domestic SUV's.

    In other words, it's still such a bore. And as for the Explorer 2nd/3rd seat, here's something from one of the most respected reports in the U.S.(Consumer Reports):

    "Three adults can squeeze across in 2nd-row, where there's generous head room and better knee and foot room than in most midsize SUV's. However, seat divided into three segments, and each can feel narrow and confining. Third row seat cushion low to floor and pacncake flat, but headroom expansive. Leg space surprisingly scant in spite of it's large rear bay. Second -row seats tip foward in single, easy motion, but access to 3rd-row still for the YOUNG AND/OR LIMBER."
    CR-NOV. 2005

    As I've stated before, these SUV's intended purpose is being served well. The 3rd-seat is not meant for long travel in any midsize SUV's.

    This is a personal assessment and certainly not being inferior. This is the "opinion" of myself and all of the related "professional" sources who have taken the time to examine all of the issues at hand on these particular vehicles. This is not some slanted view about any SUV, unlike some that have been written as of late.

    This isn't meant to be taken personal or to be derogatory of ones "views". It is a forum, right?

    P.S.- The '06 Explorer Eddie Bauer 4X4 weighs 5,063 pounds WITHOUT theater seating, so the weight difference is an insignificant explanation for the Explorer's middling performance, 3rd row seat not withstanding(again).
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,703
    of those reviews personally, but, as I consider a possible future purchase of an SUV, I appreciate quotes by the various readers far as the Explorer being boring, I would disregard that remark...I really do not expect my SUV to be dashing and exciting, like a DTS or an A6...while it should look decent, I harldy consider the Commander exciting, altho I was very interested in it and still am so...however, aside from theater seating and extra sunroof panels, it does not seem noticeably different from the Grand Cherokee...I was hoping it would be noticeably larger, not just 2-3 inches...I do not need 3rd row seating, but I like the thought of cargo space for stuff and traveling pets...

    As far as the Explorer being boring, outside styling may be, but the floor shifter, IRS, and 292 HP V8 are major improvements to me...yes, I also know that the Jeeps have floor shifters, and their hemis are much more than Ford's 292 HP...but it now brings Explorer back into the competition, whereas without floor shifter and decent V8, I really could not consider it...also thinking of 2007 Santa Fe, when it is released...
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Never said the Commander was "exciting". Exciting and SUV is the biggest oxymoron if there has every been one, no matter what type of SUV it is or how fast it goes, it is still a box on wheels(Yes this goes for the fast but undynamic Porsche, the overpriced Bimmer X5 and Range Rover Sport). The Commander is less claustrophobic than the JGC. That said, the glass panels and the theatre seating add to the airy feeling that the Commander imparts.

    About the Explorer being a bored and tired SUV, let's agree to disagree on that subject. The 292-hp V-8 that now resides under the hood of the Explorer is more than adequate to meet its needs. And it is a more cleaner, fuel efficient design due to it's trick 3-valve design that was trickled down from the 5.4L modular V-8 F-150.

    The Commander is a well executed design, being that it is based off the awesome JGC. I agree with all that the 3rd row is lacking, right along with most midsize SUV's. However, beyond that, few 3 row SUV's can touch it's performance on and off road in it's price range, regardless to what some auto journalist and comsumers say.
  • Puh-lease...if the only way you can attempt to showcase the Commander is to dredge up the Explorer, then you must be getting desperate. Fact is, C&D didn't like EITHER the Explorer or Commander very much. And what they did like about the Commander was more in the line of back-handed compliments:

    Quote" Overall, the Commander felt more connected to terra firma and was slightly more gratifying to drive than the Explorer — a little like saying one of the Bush twins parties slightly less than the other....Unless you're conducting some "difficulty eight" off-roading, neither of these SUVs is much fun."

    They liked the fact the Jeep had more horsepower than the Ford, then said " The downside is slightly jarring step-off and observed fuel economy of—whoa!—13 mpg. Stupid, dude. Marry a fat lady and you gotta buy her groceries."

    And..."Off-road, the unibody Commander proved an eager climber, mostly by dint of 375 pound-feet of "git 'er done. But its chassis evinced an unseemly number of shivers, wonks, clomps, and grunts as the suspension worked through its considerable travel. The Commander always complained that it was working harder than it was—including plenty of pushrod engine roar—while the Explorer just kept its mouth shut....At idle, at full whack, and at a 70-mph cruise, the Explorer proved less vocal than our Commander, a blessing on the boring freeway slog to the dunes...

    ...The Explorer's cargo capacity and rear seating also proved superior...In fact, the Explorer's ride surpassed the Commander's on every surface we sampled..."

    So, if you're trying to use the C&D Ford vs. Jeep article to prove the Jeep's superiority, you made a bad choice. Yea- it beat the Ford, but it's still a fat, thirsty, clunking truck, with less cargo space, a smaller 3rd seat, and a noisier, less-smooth ride than the Explorer -with real nice seats.

    Nice try!

    You all can read for yourselves:
  • OK -so I read the articles gearjammer cited above. Here is my take.

    If you need off-roading capability, tow or haul big heavy loads and need sheer horespower, the Commander has the edge over the Explorer.

    If you occasionally need those things, but are also more concerned with better gas milege, a quiter interior, more cargo space, a roomier third row seat, a smoother ride, then the Explorer has the edge.

    THe Commander is more like a truck, the Explorer, while still a truck, is more car-like - kind of the way Ford made the F150 tough, yet more comfortable inside and with big improvements in the area of NVH.

    BTW, noone who has reviewed the'06 Explorer has said it is "tired", indeed, quite the opposite, at least in everything I have read.

    I'll be driving them both this week (hopefully) - and will come back with my opinions later.

    blkhemi wrote:

    However, beyond that, few 3 row SUV's can touch it's performance on and off road in it's price range, regardless to what some auto journalist and comsumers say.

    So, you have tested hundred of cars and trucks, just like Car and Driver, Edmunds,, and can make the grand prononcement that they don't know what they're talking about, such as when it comes to the Explorer having better handling both on and off road? Just what qualifies you for such a grandiose opinion of your car testing capabilites - far superior to professional car reviewer? Please enlighten us!

    ...regardless to what some auto journalist and comsumers say...

    Indeed?!? Hey Edmunds - we have someone who says to disregard your writer's and all the rest of us consumers opinions ( or "some" - at least the ones who disagree with him, huh?) because HE knows better. Maybe you can get him a job interview?
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 11,793
    back from another long weekend. total mileage, over 900 (central ct to wahington dc area and back). wish i had at least seen a commander. maybe they are all offroading. ;)
    had a payload of 7 passengers several times, 4 adults, 2 teenagers, one little guy still in a car seat. didn't hear any complaints, other than my driving. :blush:
    my '02 explorer loves 125kmph, even at 51k miles.
    the commander is a fine vehicle, just buy it for the right reasons. to me, carrying passengers in not one of them.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2014 Ford F-150 FX4
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    no matter how touchy posters get, the Commander is a great vehicle. I can quote articles from mags and Edmunds all day, but in actuallity, having owned Jeep products for the last 30 years, I know my stuff, and the Commander and JGC are the most capable Jeeps on and off road ever.

    I'm glad to hear that there are Explorer buyers enjoying their vehicle because all are not, regardless to what one poster (thusrtonp???) wrote(read a little harder on the Explorer forums) Jeep is not exempt as is no automaker. I made reference to the Explorer because the original poster bragged about how superior it is to the Commander. WHATEVER!

    As for me having testing 100's of cars, I tested all of the Commander's competetion from a $22,000 Kia Sorento to a $60,000 VW Toureag V-10 TDI.

    I wasn't using Car and Driver to dredge up the Explorer or anything of nature. I was simply stating that if a story is told then it needs to be told right. The Commander is so bad yet it manages to beat the best-selling SUV in America, according to one of the top 5 American auto mags, no matter how bad they didn't like either(excuses excuses).

    Rooskie and thusrtonp, have you even driven the Commander? I would think not seeing how things are getting so personal. SO until you've gotten behind the wheel, I'd hold all comments with restraint.

    ExplorerX4, hope you didn't have Firestones or have the cruise set while you were"loving 125kmph??". I'd love to know how you were going so fast when the Explorer is governed at 98mph? Interesting

    So if everyone is over their pity party, please only post the likes and dislikes of the Commander and please not any more mag or article quotes.
  • ExplorerX4, hope you didn't have Firestones or have the cruise set while you were"loving 125kmph??". I'd love to know how you were going so fast when the Explorer is governed at 98mph? Interesting

    For your information, 125kmph converts to 75 mph.

    That's how.

    Let us know if you need more help with your math! :P
  • "So if everyone is over their pity party, please only post the likes and dislikes of the Commander and please not any more mag or article quotes."

    That's rich! Now some self-proclaimed forum-board censor is telling others what they should and should not post and what sources they should or should not use!

    By all means, let's not cloud our discussions with facts or opinions from credible, recognized, professional sources ! They might actually say something bad about the Commander and Herr Hemi can't take it!

    Unless I am in some violation of the Edmund's Forum User's Agreement, which I am sure our host will notify me of immediately, I will post whatever opinions, statements and facts from any source I wish to.

    Deal with it.

    Now, about that kiddie-sized 3rd row seat, poor mpg and truck-like ride......
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Well I'll help you with your English in the mean time. It can't be kmph. It has to be either kilometers per hour/ or mile per hour.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,572
    Nope - KiloMeters Per Hour works fine - KMPH. Unless you prefer Kilometres per hour. :-)


    Steve, Host
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    You are free to post all of the slanted and opinionated views you wish, however , what makes a person such a professional and moreover so knowledgeable about the Commander? Ahh....Didn't think so.

    "Now, about that kiddie-sized 3rd row seat, poor mpg and truck-like ride........"?

    You just descibed 95% of all SUV's. Nice try pal, try again

    So you deal with it.

    P.S.- Still wanting to know if you've even driven the Commander, better yet even sat in one? I would surely hope so because if not then that would make a person one of the most contradictory and bias people ever.

    Oh, and yeah, my particular HEMI can take it.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    I'm just refering to what is printed in black and white on the speedometer(K/PH) of cars and most dictionaries.:)
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    125 km/hr translates to something closer to 78 mph. :)

    I think these forums are great because everyone gets to express their own opinion freely (within the guidelines, of course!) and debate issues in friendly, noncombative and measured tones without provocation. Anyone disagree? :shades:

    tidester, host
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    I thought it to be a closer 78 mph. I thought my math skills were rusty- oh well guess one of the posters owe me an apology.

    So lets unJAM those GEARS and get some math and English lessons going.

    P.S.- I agree with you in that the forums are a great way for people to express themselves in a clean , unprovocative manner, no matter how far from the truth they may be.
  • Nope - KiloMeters Per Hour works fine - KMPH. Unless you prefer Kilometres per hour.

    Thank you!

    And to convert kmph to mph according my handy owner's manual, multiply the kmph x6, then drop the last number after the answer.

    So, if the other guy said he was doing 125 kmph, that would be 125 x 6 =750, or 75 mph.

    So, no apology due to Hemi, he was wrong, again.

    Anyway, that makes the comment about the Explorer being governed at 98 mph irrelevant. The Explorer speed was 125 kmph, not mph, and 23 mph below the governed speed, which Hemi also failed to acknowledge.

    But let's not let the facts get in the way! We'll ignore them and move on to even more ignoring of the facts and attempted censoring of the dissenters!
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    I'll still help with your English lessons tho.

    Well, gollee! What ya go an' say that fer? ;)

    no matter how far from the truth they may be.

    HUMOR ALERT: He's JOKING guys!

    tidester, host
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Ahh, there there, don't get your undies in a bunch.

    You might want to ditch that owners manual because obviously "the reader who believes in it" and the people who wrote it went to the same school( must've been one of those No Child Left Behind schools, altho a few did apparently). It still comes out to 78 m.p.h.

    I just didn't want to censor or not acknowledge the truth.
    Facts are facts.

    The guy made driving at 125 kmph seem like a speed record for SUV's, so that's why I stated whether he meant mph kp/h, just for the censorship.
  • About my Commander Limited:

    - Evil, upclass, g-wagon type styling.
    - Awesome ride and comfort.
    - Not your average JGC/Tahoe/Yukon/Explorer/Trailblazer
    - Great handeling (Dry / Rain / Snow / Off-road)
    - Quiet Cabin
    - After 1000 mile (multi-sate)roundtrip and some round-the-town driving I've only seen one!
    - Power
    - Plush interior, nicer than my 5-series

    - Gas mileage
    - Payments (but that's with any vehicle)

    Drive on!
  • I went back and read the guys post. He wrote - quote - "my '02 explorer loves 125kmph, even at 51k miles"

    Where do you get that makes him sound like he's trying to set a speed record? All he said was his car loves 128kmph. Which isn't all that fast.

    Why would he think he's trying to set a speed record drving under 80 mph?? He didn't say that - you did.

    And you didn't ask for clarification on the kmph vs. mph. That had to be pointed out to you, as you incorrectly assumed he was travelling above the governed speed -and you were wrong.

    This is what you said..."ExplorerX4, hope you didn't have Firestones or have the cruise set while you were"loving 125kmph??". I'd love to know how you were going so fast when the Explorer is governed at 98mph? Interesting

    He wasn't going over the governed speed, as everyone else on this board except you figured out! That had to be pointed out to you!
  • Looks like Jeep had to slap incentives on the Commander last weekend to get them to move - $500 cash, +$1,000 bonus cash, plus 2 years worth of gas+ 2 years scheduled maintenance.

    I've seen 2 of the "shoeboxes-on-wheels" in front of the local Jeep dealer last week - thought they'd sell over the holiday weekend, but they were still sitting there this morning with "Free Gas" painted on the windshield. Not too much demand for a 13 mpg (not kmpg - there is a difference!) gas hog these days.

    Wait a couple of months - you'll be seeing these go for $10-12k off sticker -easy.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Not exactly. kmph can be used but most use kp/h. Just thought I'd point that out to you, and everyone else on the board.
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    And yet my question goes un-answered: Have you driven the Commander? Probably not. That figures as most people who have presumptions of something haven't a clue what they're talking about.

    Incentives: If memory serves me correctly, Ford kicked off the free maintenance, gas for 2 years and huge incentives(up to $5k) on it's vehicles.

    I don't have to wait a couple of months for a $10K-$12K slash in the sticker on a Explorer Limited. I got quoted a SUV that originally cost $43.5K for $29.7K. Oh, now I see how it's the number one selling SUV because they practically give them away. No thanks. I'll take my gas guzzling HEMI Commander any day over a flippin' over, tire blowin', fire settin' Explorer any day and still have some sort of resale value left after 5 years. Next cryout--urr, post please.:P
  • blkhemiblkhemi Posts: 1,717
    Thanks for your post. I thought I was alone in the fight with the Fordies. I agree with your post, altho @ 17.9 to 18.1 mpg, gas mileage isn't a huge problem for me, especially coming from a Yukon Denali XL with about 11 mpg on a good day (please no kmpg debates, rocket scientists).

    Glad to hear you are satisfied with your Commander and that you enjoy your exclusivity like myself.:)
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 11,793
    sorry the 'kmph' caused so much confusion. :) :) :) .
    some did manage to figure it out without some tutoring.
    the commander is a good vehicle for up to 2 adults and 2 itty-bitty kids in the 2nd row.
    the jgc is a better 5 'adult' vehicle, although not the best in class.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2014 Ford F-150 FX4
Sign In or Register to comment.