Jeep Commander Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here's the blurb from the article:
"Full-Size SUV: Jeep Commander
The Jeep Commander is a good choice for off-road enthusiasts, but buyers who spend the majority of their time on the pavement should look elsewhere. U.S. News ranks the Commander last among large SUVs. Its cost of ownership over five-years is $10,000 more than the Mazda CX-9 crossover and even higher than the popular Chevrolet Tahoe, another off-road-ready vehicle. While the Commander's sub-$30K sticker may look appealing, this big SUV is expected to depreciate 50 to 60 percent over five years. Sales were down 56 percent last year, and there's speculation that it may be discontinued after 2009.

Better values: If you're in the market for a full-size SUV, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Mazda CX-9 are worth a look."


My question is: Where does this information come from? Who wrote the article? And what makes this person knowledgable enough about the subject to write this article?

I gave up on automobile magazines a long time ago because they are clearly biased towards the rice and kraut burning cars. They would regularly contradict themselves as well. I remember that 15 years ago, they mocked some of the American luxury car offerings for having tufted leather in "odd colors" like burgundy and deep blues. Recently, they touted the wonders of a Maserati offering with its deep tufted red leather seats. "It's so luxurious." :mofo:

So what's their deal? Maybe I am the only one, but I think it's beyond aggrevating that automobile publishers aren't more supportive of American makes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,563 Posts
Another article about a car from someone who knows nothing about what they speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
488 Posts
Here's the blurb from the article:
"Full-Size SUV: Jeep Commander
The Jeep Commander is a good choice for off-road enthusiasts, but buyers who spend the majority of their time on the pavement should look elsewhere. U.S. News ranks the Commander last among large SUVs. Its cost of ownership over five-years is $10,000 more than the Mazda CX-9 crossover and even higher than the popular Chevrolet Tahoe, another off-road-ready vehicle. While the Commander's sub-$30K sticker may look appealing, this big SUV is expected to depreciate 50 to 60 percent over five years. Sales were down 56 percent last year, and there's speculation that it may be discontinued after 2009.

Better values: If you're in the market for a full-size SUV, the Chevrolet Tahoe and Mazda CX-9 are worth a look."


My question is: Where does this information come from? Who wrote the article? And what makes this person knowledgable enough about the subject to write this article?

I gave up on automobile magazines a long time ago because they are clearly biased towards the rice and kraut burning cars. They would regularly contradict themselves as well. I remember that 15 years ago, they mocked some of the American luxury car offerings for having tufted leather in "odd colors" like burgundy and deep blues. Recently, they touted the wonders of a Maserati offering with its deep tufted red leather seats. "It's so luxurious." :mofo:

So what's their deal? Maybe I am the only one, but I think it's beyond aggrevating that automobile publishers aren't more supportive of American makes.

the car mags over here helped in the demise of the UK car industry. I don't trust what i read from a magazine supported by advertising
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
Like the article says... the Commander is a poor value if used on pavement, but good value for off road enthusiasts. You could say the very same thing about a 1946 Dodge Power Wagon with 40'' tires and a PTO winch too. Give me a break.

From what I seen of shock mounts, crossbeams etc. hanging down underneath on a LOT of SUV's (usually when I'm behind one at a traffic light) they're best used as a 'pavement' 4x4. Look at this photo and tell me how many things hang down underneath. NOTHING, because it's designed for going OFF road. Yes, it's a luxury-mobile, but nevertheless fully capable of OFF roading.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Man you beat me to it, I was just about to post the link to the article.......I think with the recession going on and the gas price explosion from last year, there is huge biased opinion towards vehicles that dont seem to fit in the "green wave" that's going on now. But I can say that this is my first Jeep, and looking aound my town, I cant go one day driving around without seeing atleast 5 other Commanders in my area alone. It's not a Honda so don't expect 50 mpg, but if anything can get me from Greenville NC to Maryland on one tank of gas like my XK did, that's value enough. Although the resale value on Jeeps is not very good, Jeeps last a very long time, I can honestly say I have probably seen one jeep in my life standed on the side of the road. The guy the wrote that article probably drives a prius that runs on BS...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
They have a point on the depreciation too. Compared to a lot of other vehicles, the Commanders have lost a lot of value in very little time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
They have a point on the depreciation too. Compared to a lot of other vehicles, the Commanders have lost a lot of value in very little time.

Thats why we bought a "gently used" one :rofl: We looked at the new ones and desided that they were alittle much for our wallet but a used one was do-able... the initial depreciation hit you guys took could pay my college tuition for a year!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Ughh, Mazda CX-9 are you serious?! How is that considered a full-size SUV? It looks like a giant egg. How do you compare a XK and a CX-9? really...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Like the article says... the Commander is a poor value if used on pavement, but good value for off road enthusiasts. You could say the very same thing about a 1946 Dodge Power Wagon with 40'' tires and a PTO winch too. Give me a break.

From what I seen of shock mounts, crossbeams etc. hanging down underneath on a LOT of SUV's (usually when I'm behind one at a traffic light) they're best used as a 'pavement' 4x4. Look at this photo and tell me how many things hang down underneath. NOTHING, because it's designed for going OFF road. Yes, it's a luxury-mobile, but nevertheless fully capable of OFF roading.
Adondo makes a good point... I pulled up behind a late-model Tahoe this morning - all sorts of hardware drooping below the frame. No way I'd take a Tahoe/Yukon/Suburban/YukonXL on any serious off-roading as a stock-model.

Since I plan on running my XK into the dirt, I'd rather trade the cheaper up-front price - which, BTW, factors in that same deprediation rate - than pay much more $$$$ up front simply to feel better about my "investment." Come on, all vehicles drop thousands the moment you leave the dealer lot and for those of us that plan on keeping our "classics" it really doesn't matter.

In this new economic era, the days of leasing for two years or trading in every three are over, period. What is a good value, and will last for many years and many, many miles is what matters now. IMHO the Jeep Commander is a good value under these circumstances.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,264 Posts
The Jeep Commander is a good choice for off-road enthusiasts...

I'm covered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,262 Posts
One other aspect that these reporters do not factor into their equasion is the actual transaction price of the vehicle.
They look at the book value of a 1 year old vehicle based on the retail price(window sticker).
However, in the case of Chrysler products, the manufacturer is not afraid to deep discount to make the sale.
For the most part these sales were often 20% off window or more, depending on the program at the time of sale.
When we look at current value verses our transaction price(remove tax and fees) these vehicles are actually holding a very good residual value and have not lost anywhere near 50%.
In my opinion, the Commander represents a incredible bargan for a full size feature laden vehicle. Especially when you consider a s/box like a camry typically runs about or above 30k with a decent option load.
So, if you do the math, you'll see ya darn near stole your Commander, and expressed as a percentage of what you paid, it performs quite well.

OK, off my soapbox, however, Comparing a crossover front drive vehicle that has add on rear drive w/no transfer case or off road capability (CX-9) is rather silly and shows the education level of the articles writer doesn't it?

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
One other aspect that these reporters do not factor into their equasion is the actual transaction price of the vehicle.
They look at the book value of a 1 year old vehicle based on the retail price(window sticker).
However, in the case of Chrysler products, the manufacturer is not afraid to deep discount to make the sale.
For the most part these sales were often 20% off window or more, depending on the program at the time of sale.
When we look at current value verses our transaction price(remove tax and fees) these vehicles are actually holding a very good residual value and have not lost anywhere near 50%.
In my opinion, the Commander represents a incredible bargan for a full size feature laden vehicle. Especially when you consider a s/box like a camry typically runs about or above 30k with a decent option load.
So, if you do the math, you'll see ya darn near stole your Commander, and expressed as a percentage of what you paid, it performs quite well.

OK, off my soapbox, however, Comparing a crossover front drive vehicle that has add on rear drive w/no transfer case or off road capability (CX-9) is rather silly and shows the education level of the articles writer doesn't it?

Rob
I have to agree with Rob on this one. I bought a totally loaded 07 with the Hemi, window sticker was over $44k. I paid a little under $29K when it was all said and done. That, by my calculation is a 35% difference. I bet they didn't factor that into there study.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
397 Posts
Here's some of the basic specs of the three vehicles highlighted by yahoo. They compare an apple to an orange (ok a grapefruit) to the CX-9 banana. I was surprised to see the CX-9 footprint was so large, excepting its height which is you can be certain comes out of its headroom. The Tahoe is huge seats 9 and is in a different class altogether.

What is also interesting to note is the weight. The CX-9 is 654 lbs lighter than the Commander. 654 lbs is more than my family of 5 plus the dog! The Commander is heavy, I don't think its the heated seats or the electronic gizmos adding up to all that mass. You are getting a far more robust engine, drivetrain and suspension. And isn't that what you are really buying, especially in an SUV?


Exterior........Commander...... CX-9.....................Tahoe
Length.........188.5 in..........199.8 in..................202 in.
Width............74.8 in...........76.2 in....................79 in.
Height...........72.1 in...........68 in.......................76.9 in.
Weight..........5204 lbs.........4550 lbs..................5524 lbs.
Wheel Base....109.5 in.........113.2 in...................116 in.
Clearance.......8.6 in.............8.1 in......................9.1 in.

Heh, the engine horsepower and torque ratings probably would have been helpful too. Not to mention the towing capacity. Suffice it to say the Mazda does not compare too favorably if those categories are of interest.

(edit: sorry when I typed it the columns were all neat and tidy, it got smooshed when I posted it)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
I found this article taped to my desk with the XK section highlighted. Yahoo cant even make a decent search engine and I am supposed to believe they can hire someone to critique vehicles? Come on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,387 Posts
I found this article taped to my desk with the XK section highlighted. Yahoo cant even make a decent search engine and I am supposed to believe they can hire someone to critique vehicles? Come on.

isn't that the truth!.......Very good............!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,405 Posts
^^Yah what he said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
862 Posts
YAHOO started back in the days of UNIX. The good ol' internet was based on NON-graphic UNIX software. Now, of course, it's all but ruined by marketers and their endless parades of ads. It was an acronym for: Yet Another Hierarchical Officious Oracle. It was a search engine. So... a couple decades later, suddenly they're experts on vehicles?

As for resale value, even a Mercedes M class is going to plummet $10,000 the instant the tires bump over the driveway of the stealership. The Commander is a $40k vehicle for crying out loud. Any $40 vehicle is going to take a major price hit even at 6 months old.

Here's a little story for you. (And... how I ended up with a Commander in the first place)

I started out looking at the 4-door Wranglers. I test drove a couple, and liked them. But, they were going to give me squat for my Durango. I didn't like the deal, so I walked away and forgot about it.

Fast forward a year. I see ads in the paper with the same Jeep I looked at before for suddenly $10k less. So, I started looking again. I made the 'mistake' of driving a Commander, and now I have one.

I drove the Commander while I was looking for a new Durango. There were a few things I didn't like about the 4-door Wrangler, and eyeballed 2008 Durangos instead. I sat in a sales office making a deal on an '08 with only 15 miles showing. They tried sticking me with 6.5% so I walked away. (And that was after three trips to the manager's office - they started out at 9%. I hate that stupid game!)

Then... I started noticing lease return '08 Durangos were around $12k to $14k. I was about the sign the dotted line for $31k on a new '08. So... a perfect condition lease return Dodge Durango with maybe 20k miles on the odo was far less than HALF a new one? In other words, someone else drove it for a year, farted in the seat, etc. and it's suddenly worth $20,000 less?!?

The Commanders were about the same price drop from new, except from my searching, they hold value much better than Durangos. You can buy an okay '06 Durango for about $5k to 7k, you can't touch an '06 Commander for less than $12k. Sounds like a good value hold to ME.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top