Spy Shots: 2007 Jeep Compass

[TBR]

4runner (which the GC actually competes with):

Also, the Explorer is 3 inches longer than the GC, not much but certainly enough to effect rear seat passengers.  

[ifcar]

Chrysler decided that buyers didn't need FWD and look how successful the 300 is. They have to understand their customer and offer what that customer needs or wants, that is why they lost so much marketshare during the '80s and '90s. Cubic footage doesn't tell me anything, floor space is the most useful way of measuring cargo capacity.

The 300 is successful largely for its styling, and the 300C has the added benefit of a huge V8 (which all but required RWD). "Deciding" that consumers didn't need FWD had nothing to do with it.

And fine, you don't believe in cubic footage, so you post pictures to prove...well, that wasn't clear. I believe that there is a site that has floor length specs, but the Explorer is far better endowed in that area.  

[TBR]

Chrysler had to decide that buyers didn't need FWD and would rather have a big V8, they had to research their customer to figure that out. If they had decided wrong they would have a complete failure on their hands.  

[Tom]

I thought the Liberty allready competed in this segment?

The liberty at least has 4WD and box section steel frame.

Yeah, atleast the Liberty is a capable offroader not built on some unibody or some crap.

:blink:

Save for the YJ and TJ, every new Jeep since 1984 has been unibody...

:o  

[280Z Turbo]

I thought the Liberty allready competed in this segment?

The liberty at least has 4WD and box section steel frame.

Yeah, atleast the Liberty is a capable offroader not built on some unibody or some crap.

:blink:

Save for the YJ and TJ, every new Jeep since 1984 has been unibody...

:o

93JC beat me to it.

Unibodies can still be tough, although the XJ does kind of have a frame underneeth.

[ifcar]

Chrysler had to decide that buyers didn't need FWD and would rather have a big V8, they had to research their customer to figure that out. If they had decided wrong they would have a complete failure on their hands.

No, Chrysler simply went after a sort of buyer who cared more about the look than anything else. The V6 model would have succeeded whether it was FWD, RWD, or AWD, and probably would have been better in several ways with an FWD-based setup, in ways that would have won it additional sales.

[TBR]

Chrysler had to decide that buyers didn't need FWD and would rather have a big V8, they had to research their customer to figure that out. If they had decided wrong they would have a complete failure on their hands.

No, Chrysler simply went after a sort of buyer who cared more about the look than anything else. The V6 model would have succeeded whether it was FWD, RWD, or AWD, and probably would have been better in several ways with an FWD-based setup, in ways that would have won it additional sales.

At one point Chrysler had to decide that FWD was no longer deemed necessary by its customers. This isn't complicated or confusing, it is very simple. Chrysler had to make a decision regarding drivetrain layout and they did so by researching their customer.  

[ifcar]

Chrysler had to decide that buyers didn't need FWD and would rather have a big V8, they had to research their customer to figure that out. If they had decided wrong they would have a complete failure on their hands.

No, Chrysler simply went after a sort of buyer who cared more about the look than anything else. The V6 model would have succeeded whether it was FWD, RWD, or AWD, and probably would have been better in several ways with an FWD-based setup, in ways that would have won it additional sales.

At one point Chrysler had to decide that FWD was no longer deemed necessary by its customers. This isn't complicated or confusing, it is very simple. Chrysler had to make a decision regarding drivetrain layout and they did so by researching their customer.

It wasn't a decision on whether it was necessary, it was whether it was DESIRED.  

[TBR]

Okay, but they still had to read their customers and make a compromise that they thought their customers would favor.

[ifcar]

And you think that Jeep decided that its customers would rather not have decent cargo or rear seat space? I'd say they just dropped the ball on it.

[TBR]

I agree that more space would be nice (though I still think it has plenty of cargo space), but it would have meant sacrificing style, something more important to GC buyers than cargo utility.  

[ifcar]

I agree that more space would be nice (though I still think it has plenty of cargo space), but it would have meant sacrificing style, something more important to GC buyers than cargo utility.

How do you know that it would have sacrificed style, how do you know that GC buyers don't value utility, and what gives you the idea that worst-in-class cargo space is still enough?

[TBR]

A higher roof and different porportions would be necessary to improve cargo capacity and those would result in a completely different look. "Worst in class" cargo utility (in reality it isn't as bad as you think) is fine because of the kind of people that buy GCs, I almost never see anyone under 45 driving a GC.

[ifcar]

A higher roof and different porportions would be necessary to improve cargo capacity and those would result in a completely different look. "Worst in class" cargo utility (in reality it isn't as bad as you think) is fine because of the kind of people that buy GCs, I almost never see anyone under 45 driving a GC.

What you see does not at all represent nationwide trends. I rarely see anyone under 40 driving one, does that mean that people under 40 don't drive them?

And I don't see why you equate a different look with an inferior one; quite frankly, I don't consider the GC a particularly attractive vehicle from the outside.

[TBR]

It is certainly more attractive than the Explorer, and yes there are people under 40 driving them, but the majority of owners are definitely over 40.

[ifcar]

It is certainly more attractive than the Explorer, and yes there are people under 40 driving them, but the majority of owners are definitely over 40.

It's more attractive than an Explorer, that's nice. What's your point?

And yes, it tends to appeal to an above-40 market? Where's the point there?

[TBR]

It is certainly more attractive than the Explorer, and yes there are people under 40 driving them, but the majority of owners are definitely over 40.

It's more attractive than an Explorer, that's nice. What's your point?

And yes, it tends to appeal to an above-40 market? Where's the point there?

My point is that its styling is the reason it has less cargo room than the Explorer, and people over 40 don't need much cargo room.  

[ifcar]

It is certainly more attractive than the Explorer, and yes there are people under 40 driving them, but the majority of owners are definitely over 40.

It's more attractive than an Explorer, that's nice. What's your point?

And yes, it tends to appeal to an above-40 market? Where's the point there?

My point is that its styling is the reason it has less cargo room than the Explorer, and people over 40 don't need much cargo room.

People over 40 don't need cargo room? What a positively stupid statement, definitely not on your usual level. Different people have different needs, regardless of their age.

And you think that the only styling choices Jeep had were to have the current version with poor cargo capacity or an Explorer look-alike?

[TBR]

I am not saying that over 40 people don't need cargo room, they just don't need as much as the typical Explorer buyer does. And, they couldn't get more cargo room without completely change the porportions, the GC has always had long hood, cab backward porportions, to get more room they would have to either make it a more cab forward design or make it longer, neither change would be appreciated by current owners.

And, I never thought I would say this, but I am getting tired of arguing with you over everything

[ifcar]

I am not saying that over 40 people don't need cargo room, they just don't need as much as the typical Explorer buyer does. And, they couldn't get more cargo room without completely change the porportions, the GC has always had long hood, cab backward porportions, to get more room they would have to either make it a more cab forward design or make it longer, neither change would be appreciated by current owners.

And, I never thought I would say this, but I am getting tired of arguing with you over everything

You cannot, unless you have done extensive research at the same level as a manufacturer, determine whether Grand Cherokee buyers want/need more cargo space than Explorer buyers want/need. And I seriously doubt that you've done that level of research to produce that post.

And the entire look wouldn't really have to be changed. It could be longer and still look the same (and I doubt anyone would notice even when comparing the two directly), or the roof could simply be reshaped towards the rear of the vehicle. The previous Grand Cherokee had almost an additional 15 cubic feet of cargo space, while still looking similar. There's no reason that the current one could have managed to do better than worst-in-class.

And I never grow weary of debating, as long as it stays rational, calm, and intelligent.

And if you're tired of arguing everything, stop being wrong about everything.  :P  

[TBR]

The previous GC had more room?!?! Humph, I assume that it hadn't changes, and I still maintain that volume doesn't matter. And, Chrysler did research and apparantly determined that their buyers cared more about style than utility.  

[ifcar]

The previous GC had more room?!?! Humph, I assume that it hadn't changes, and I still maintain that volume doesn't matter. And, Chrysler did research and apparantly determined that their buyers cared more about style than utility.

Or maybe they just cut corners when it came to packaging.  

[TBR]

Not likely, if there is one thing Chrysler can do better than anyone else it is packaging.  

[ifcar]

Not likely, if there is one thing Chrysler can do better than anyone else it is packaging.

They haven't shown it in either the Grand Cherokee or the 300, their two most recent vehicles. Which packaging success, exactly, are you referring to?

[TBR]

The minivans and LH cars.  

[TBR]

Forgot one, the first gen Durango was also ahead of its time as far as packaging was concerned (and, in fact, the Durango is still the only vehicle I know of that has both a solid rear axle and a fold flat 3rd row, no one else has been able to do that).  

[ifcar]

The minivans and LH cars.

We're referring to a different sort of packaging, apparently. I mean the ability to make the most of the available space, not the way the seats fold. The Chrysler vans do not have exceptional cargo or passenger space (their age has something to do with this), so they are not an example of great packaging. And how do the LHs stand out in packaging, they are no more roomy than competing cars that are the same size.

[TBR]

Yes, they were. They had more room than pretty much everything out there if I recall correctly. And, getting the seats to fold into the floor does involve space packaging.  

[ifcar]

Yes, they were. They had more room than pretty much everything out there if I recall correctly. And, getting the seats to fold into the floor does involve space packaging.

The first "they" is the LHs? Not at all. The sloped rooflines killed rear headroom, and the cab-forward moved the dash too close to the front occupants. They're no roomier than an Impala, and less comfortable inside than a Taurus.

And folding seats into the floor is a different kind of space packaging, that involved moving the spare tire to an impossible-to-reach location and putting seats there instead.

[TBR]

I'll research some numbers on the LH later.