2006 Jeep Commander

[BMWDave]

2006 Jeep Commander
Expanding the Brand: Jeep thinks inside the box for more seats
WES RAYNAL
Published Date: 9/19/05
2006 JEEP COMMANDER
ON SALE: Now
BASE PRICE: $28,135
POWERTRAIN: 3.7-liter, 210-hp, 235-lb-ft V6; awd, five-speed automatic
CURB WEIGHT: 4783 lbs
0 TO 60 MPH: 11.0 seconds (mfr.)
FUEL MILEAGE (EPA COMBINED): 18.8 mpg

Why does the Jeep Commander exist? Does the world really need another SUV that approaches 5000 pounds? According to Jeep boss Jeff Bell, the answer is yes, and his reasoning is pretty simple: Jeep, legendary maker of all things SUV, didn?t have a seven-passenger vehicle in its line. So? So this: ?Forty percent of full-size SUV sales [in 2004] went to trucks with third-row seats,? Bell said.

If that?s the price of admission, there?s no point forcing those looking for a third row to leave Jeep for another automaker. So now it offers a third row, for the first time in its history.


Okay, so Jeep used the Grand Cherokee platform for Commander, why not just chuck a third row into the back of a Grand Cherokee, like Chevy did with the TrailBlazer and Ford with the Explorer?

?Because that would have ruined the Grand Cherokee?s shape,? Bell said.

Um, okay, but we?re still a little fuzzy on the need to do a whole new body.

?Jeep is heading in two directions in terms of design,? Bell said, ?traditional like the Commander and more contemporary, like the Grand Cherokee. We didn?t want to screw up the Grand Cherokee?s looks.?

The Commander looks much like a bigger version of the Cherokee that Jeep built from 1984 to 1996. At 109.5 inches, the Commander?s wheelbase is the same as the latest Grand Cherokee?s; at 188.5 inches long overall, the Commander is just two inches longer than its platform-mate.


Speaking of ?Grand? traditions, the old Jeep Grand Wagoneer, sold from the 1960s through the end of production in 1991, provided inspiration for Commander?s designers, especially its luxury cabin and trimmings. Jeep likes to point out that its latest SUV was designed from the inside out for maximum interior space.

The Commander has an inch more rear legroom than a Grand Cherokee. And with the rearward most seats folded, the Commander has 36.4 cubic feet of cargo space. That compares to the Grand Cherokee?s 35 with the rear seat up. When the Commander?s way back seat is up, there is just 7.5 cubic feet of storage. So the Commander is a five-seater with slightly more cargo room than a Grand Cherokee, or a seven-seater with little cargo space. Two adults can sit in the Commander?s third row if the trip is short; otherwise, leave that to the kids.

Under its skin the Commander is pretty much a Grand Cherokee. Three engines are available, a 3.7-liter, 210-hp V6 (235 lb-ft); the 4.7-liter, 235-hp V8 (305 lb-ft); and the 5.7-liter, 330-hp (375 lb-ft) Hemi. The Commander?s Hemi has cylinder deactivation, which shuts off four cylinders when cruising. Jeep says that should add 20 percent to your miles-per-gallon average over a standard V8. Two electronic five-speed automatic transmissions are available, one for the V6 and a beefier one for the V8s.


After driving the V6 and the Hemi, we?d say go with the latter. The V6 felt too slow?the engine had to work hard on the freeway to keep up with traffic. The Hemi, on the other hand, provided plenty of poke, and out on the freeway we couldn?t tell when we were running on just four cylinders?the switching between eight and four was imperceptible. (We didn?t drive the 4.7.) Jeep says the V6?s EPA mileage numbers are 17/21 city/highway, while the 4.7 and Hemi are 15/20 and 14/19, respectively.

Suspension is independent in front and a live rear axle in the rear. What struck us most driving the Commander? The way it went down the highway, particularly the 5.7-liter model: It was comfortable, composed and quiet, especially considering we were driving a square box, basically, at freeway speeds. Tire and wind noise were minimal, and the truck chugged along as nicely as you please. The Commander surprised us in corners, too?it felt (for its weight) balanced and controlled.


Three full-time four-wheel-drive systems are available. Quadra-Trac I is your basic system, with no high or low ranges. Quadra-Trac II adds a switch to control the two-speed transfer case. The third choice, Quadra-Drive II, uses the two-speed transfer case and adds electronic limited-slip differentials. With nine inches of suspension travel and the various four-wheel-drive systems, the Commander was a terror off-road, as we expected it to be. In Pennsylvania?s Pocono Mountains we climbed up and down hills, over rocks, logs, through streams?all the stuff Jeeps are known for. The Commander easily handled it all, well? like a Jeep.

Prices start a $36,900, and you can option up a Commander and get the sticker north of $40,000 pretty quickly.

Jeep has been doing SUVs for 65 years with few clunkers in all that time. We figure the Commander will be a hit, too, even if its primary role is keeping loyalists within the family.

[BMWDave]

I saw one of these driving last week.  I loved it.  It evokes memories of the Cherokee, which I think is one of the best looking SUVs ever built.

[Raza]

A little slab sided, but over all good looking.

But then again, I like big, slab sided SUVs that don't care about aerodynamics...




How does this actually perform offroad?  I'm a strictly tarmac guy, unless you're talking rally.  Generally, if you're off the road, you're doing something wrong, in my book.  But you guys know more about offroad SUV performance than I do, so how does this thing stack up?

[cozmik]

I hate the way this looks, which is odd, because I love the G-Class, but this thing is just ugly. The interior doesn't exaclt blow me away either.  :wacko:

[Raza]

I don't like the way the center console bulges out like Kirstie Alley, but other than that, it's pretty nice.

[thewizard16]

I really think it's hideous. Especially the front. The back is okay, but the side and front are just horrible. The interior looks terrible too.  

[MX793]

I admire it's "This is a Jeep and if you don't like it, then take a hike" styling.  Not my type of vehicle, though.

[Raza]

I admire it's "This is a Jeep and if you don't like it, then take a hike" styling.  Not my type of vehicle, though.

Exactly.  Same here.

[Rupert]

A little slab sided, but over all good looking.

But then again, I like big, slab sided SUVs that don't care about aerodynamics...

So do I
(see sig)

[ifcar]

I like the exterior except for the headlights, the interior is all right. But I really don't expect much from the vehicle, just a tippier Durango that does better off road and has a smaller third row seat.

[Raza]

A little slab sided, but over all good looking.

But then again, I like big, slab sided SUVs that don't care about aerodynamics...

So do I
(see sig)

I'm still not talking to you.



 

[mazda6er]

I really like how it looks, inside and out. The interior seems a bit too similar to commercial vehicles, but it's still good. I thought this would be at least a little more spacious than the GC. Seems pointless to me.

[93JC]

I saw one of these driving last week.  I loved it.  It evokes memories of the Cherokee, which I think is one of the best looking SUVs ever built.

[280Z Turbo]

The Commander tries too hard to be un-aerodynamic. It just looks goofy to me.

The XJ is MUCH better.

[Catman]

I won't give up my Sequoia for one but I'll admit I like it much better than I did initially.  I've never been a fan of the Jeep interiors though (or Dodge for that matter).  This one isn't too bad though.

[Rupert]

A little slab sided, but over all good looking.

But then again, I like big, slab sided SUVs that don't care about aerodynamics...

So do I
(see sig)

I'm still not talking to you.

Man, you do hold a grudge!

[Speed_Racer]

I saw one of these in person today at the local Dodge/Chry./Jeep dealer. It looks better than photos, but it still isnt attractive. The interior seemed a bit dark, the exposed screws weren't really that "aggressive looking," that front end is horrendous.

It basically seems like its trying to hard to look tough, when its really more like a minivan (3 rows of seating).

I also saw a new Charger R/T Daytona, w/ a $5000 "market adjustment."  (That brought the price to around $38,000)

[crv16]

I was disgusted by the initial pictures, but then it grew on me.  I'm back to disgusted after seeing it in person.  

[Raghavan]

meh, doesn't do anythign for me.

[TBR]

C/D compared it with the new Explorer, and, surprise, surpise, it won, despite the fact they didn't like its handling or ride (haven't read the article yet so I don't know the details).

[ifcar]

Where'd you hear this?

[TBR]

I got my mag today. I just read the pros and cons.

[ifcar]

I see. Just Explorer vs. Commander, or a few others in there as well?

[TBR]

Just the two.

[giant_mtb]

I'm not so sure comparing a Jeep to an Explorer is all that fair...or is that not the case with this new Jeep?  :blink:  

[ifcar]

They're two new domestic SUVs, both with V6s and V8s. I suppose the comparo justifies their logic better.