What's new
By:
Mopar Insiders Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Brazilian Jeep® Commander Will Be Available In Two Trim-Levels!

Brazilian Jeep® Commander Will Be Available In Two Trim-Levels!​

New Vehicle Will Launch At End Of The Month...​


1628640264014.png

As Jeep® Brazil prepares for the launch of its all-new seven-passenger D-segment 2022 Jeep Commander SUV at the end of the month, our good friends at Autos Segredos (Auto Secrets) are filling us in with some of the last-minute details before the vehicle gets unveiled.

Brazilian Jeep® Commander Will Be Available In Two Trim-Levels!

As Jeep® Brazil prepares for the launch of its all-new seven-passenger D-segment 2022 Jeep Commander SUV at the end of the month, our good friends at Autos Segredos (Auto Secrets) are filling us in with some of the last-minute details before the vehicle gets unveiled.
moparinsiders.com moparinsiders.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Jeep should do just 4 trims of the KM (Cherokee) replacement--Limited, Trailhawk, Overland, and Summit for the US market. Since the Compass is now over $26K starting and the two row Cherokee is likely to start at $36K, there isn't much room to play in. Jeep can easily target the Evoque/Discovery Sport crowd, as Dodge is likely to go after mainstream rivals.
 
Archknight said:
Jeep should do just 4 trims of the KM (Cherokee) replacement--Limited, Trailhawk, Overland, and Summit for the US market. Since the Compass is now over $26K starting and the two row Cherokee is likely to start at $36K, there isn't much room to play in. Jeep can easily target the Evoque/Discovery Sport crowd, as Dodge is likely to go after mainstream rivals.
Click to expand...

That makes the most sense for the margin focus
 
Speaking of the Cherokee, there are rumors floating around that the next Cherokee will take on a mini Grand Wagoneer style. This would be much like when the first generation Compass took on the Grand Cherokee's style when FCA took over. That move certainly was successful, but now we have two Jeep models with the same style, the Compass and Cherokee, while the Grand Cherokee has evolved in appearance.

The thing is, the sources of such rumors haven't been reliable and have made some pretty wild claims in the past which didn't come to pass.
 
patfromigh said:
Speaking of the Cherokee, there are rumors floating around that the next Cherokee will take on a mini Grand Wagoneer style. This would be much like when the first generation Compass took on the Grand Cherokee's style when FCA took over. That move certainly was successful, but now we have two Jeep models with the same style, the Compass and Cherokee, while the Grand Cherokee has evolved in appearance.

The thing is, the sources of such rumors haven't been reliable and have made some pretty wild claims in the past which didn't come to pass.
Click to expand...

You know, when I was watching a review of the Grand Wagoneer today, the presenter (Alex on Autos) also briefly showed a "regular" Wagoneer. The headlights of it reminded me of the KL.

So I wouldn't really be upset by that rumor, especially if the boxy rear design was adopted as well.
 
Will platform will KM be based on?
What will Belvidere produce in calendar 2023?
What platform will the next vans be based on in 2025?

Hint - I have to make a correction to my prior plant/platform list. The only plant in the Americas that will produce STLA Medium is Toluca.

Quiz - if Toluca is the only STLA Medium plant, everything else built in the US/Canada must be based on two platforms - what are they?

;)
 
Last edited:
Another Jeep home run for Brazil, they understand their market and seem to have much creative and engineering talent. I just wonder how much co-ordination goes on between Jeep USA and the global Jeep development process. It is amazing how Jeep is building the brand.
As to the Cherokee, that is presenting a challenge to Jeep, but I am thinking they will utilize the STLA-RWD platform with Challenger, Charger and a some kind of 300 replacement and build on the current styling which can serve as a signature “look”. It will be a North American only two row offering. I anticipate a Chrysler SUV spin-off that will be three rows. One factory, one platform, five vehicles. Remember what a great job Chrysler did with the Mitsubishi platform and the Avenger, 200, Compass, Patriot, and Caliber and I’m not being sarcastic. I remain a Caliber fan, a crossover ahead of its time. Crazy maybe, but it just might work.
 
Last edited:
I notice the commander get a proper shifter not a dumb knob. Are we the only market doing the knob.
 
Yoodie said:
I notice the commander get a proper shifter not a dumb knob. Are we the only market doing the knob.
Click to expand...
I agree, for those of us who perhaps drove a four speed muscle car like me and loved it. I enjoy a sense of control, even if just tooling around, in my three current Mopar automatics with a shift feature. Most folks don’t see it that way, some are even confused or intimidated by these features and are just fine with the knob. Popping the clutch, power shifting my R/T through the gears, down shifting and diving into turns, a lost art for “gear heads”. It’s market research, customer surveys and focus groups that rule the day now. Too bad, that 1970 Challenger R/T was one bad ash drive. Miss it everyday.
 
bill burke said:
Another Jeep home run for Brazil, they understand their market and seem to have much creative and engineering talent. I just wonder how much co-ordination goes on between Jeep USA and the global Jeep development process. It is amazing how Jeep is building the brand.
As to the Cherokee, that is presenting a challenge to Jeep, but I am thinking they will utilize the STLA-RWD platform with Challenger, Charger and a some kind of 300 replacement and build on the current styling which can serve as a signature “look”. It will be a North American only two row offering. I anticipate a Chrysler SUV spin-off that will be three rows. One factory, one platform, five vehicles. Remember what a great job Chrysler did with the Mitsubishi platform and the Avenger, 200, Compass, Patriot, and Caliber and I’m not being sarcastic. I remain a Caliber fan, a crossover ahead of its time. Crazy maybe, but it just might work.
Click to expand...
Nope. Strongly disagree those, where bad , uncompetitive and outdated out of the gate products.
 
Last edited:
cygnus said:
Will platform will KM be based on?
What will Belvidere produce in calendar 2023?
What platform will the next vans be based on in 2025?

Hint - I have to make a correction to my prior plant/platform list. The only plant in the Americas that will produce STLA Medium is Toluca.

Quiz - if Toluca is the only STLA Medium plant, everything else built in the US/Canada must be based on two platforms - what are they?

;)
Click to expand...
Wrangler & Gladiator will continue to have their own underpinnings.
 
Yoodie said:
I notice the commander get a proper shifter not a dumb knob. Are we the only market doing the knob.
Click to expand...

You all know that dumb knob is just as connect to the transmission as Dumb Joystick on Automatic cars. The is no such thing a as Proper shifter in todays automatics.... it is a complex and room hogging mechanism to mimic the feel of connect device. It no more than a ode to a day when it did have a physical connection but is no more a proper shifter than my Logitech rig for Forza.

Most PROPER race cars have abandoned the slow shifting for paddle shifters which are offered on most performance Mopars. Having driven all or owned all the iterations the "Dumb" knob is the most elegant solution. If I want control the paddle shifter mated to the 8spd with slaughter 6spd and clutch. It is a nice retro experience but for efficiency and speed it hasn't been a manual for awhile and Joystick to hold something in your hand increasingly makes less sense for automatics.
 
bill burke said:
Another Jeep home run for Brazil, they understand their market and seem to have much creative and engineering talent. I just wonder how much co-ordination goes on between Jeep USA and the global Jeep development process. It is amazing how Jeep is building the brand.
As to the Cherokee, that is presenting a challenge to Jeep, but I am thinking they will utilize the STLA-RWD platform with Challenger, Charger and a some kind of 300 replacement and build on the current styling which can serve as a signature “look”. It will be a North American only two row offering. I anticipate a Chrysler SUV spin-off that will be three rows. One factory, one platform, five vehicles. Remember what a great job Chrysler did with the Mitsubishi platform and the Avenger, 200, Compass, Patriot, and Caliber and I’m not being sarcastic. I remain a Caliber fan, a crossover ahead of its time. Crazy maybe, but it just might work.
Click to expand...

Is this a JOKE... REALLY not being cruel but is this a JOKE?

Those Horribly executed products nearly killed the company. I literally, I mean hours away from killing the company. They did a horrible job, the CAD systems became incompatible and all the development time was spent just importing the files.

Please don't use that execution as anything other then a complete and utter failure. The idea of the Caliber was ahead of its time, but so was the Eagle. The execution of those 5 was a illustration of what not to do.

KM is already being implemented so unless it is scuttled it will not be on STLA, I hope that is considered for the next version. More Stelvio sized.
 
TripleT said:
You all know that dumb knob is just as connect to the transmission as Dumb Joystick on Automatic cars. The is no such thing a as Proper shifter in todays automatics.... it is a complex and room hogging mechanism to mimic the feel of connect device. It no more than a ode to a day when it did have a physical connection but is no more a proper shifter than my Logitech rig for Forza.

Most PROPER race cars have abandoned the slow shifting for paddle shifters which are offered on most performance Mopars. Having driven all or owned all the iterations the "Dumb" knob is the most elegant solution. If I want control the paddle shifter mated to the 8spd with slaughter 6spd and clutch. It is a nice retro experience but for efficiency and speed it hasn't been a manual for awhile and Joystick to hold something in your hand increasingly makes less sense for automatics.
Click to expand...
I don’t really care that it is electronically linked. It is a question of eyes up driving. The scenario I often use is the backing out of a parking space and an opposing driver begins to either back into you or drive thru you perpendicularly due to inattention. I would love to see reaction times for finding the knob and getting it properly in gear necesssary to avoid a problem. With the gating of a shift lever I can slap from R to D without visual verification. Some of that can be addressed by some non-visual feedback allowing the user to feel which click, on the knob, is which. They also removed some of the interlock without the button, so no w the only interlock in most iterations is the brake. Buttons such as the Chevy and Honda designs attempt to address some of it by differing the feel or direction of travel to avoid eyes up errors. Knobs are probably good for 99% percent of operations but IMO they will be error prone in those 1% situations which may involve stress or speed of action.

Elegance aside, I personally believe the human factors case is significantly different between the two; not too mention the fact that it is often horribly obstructed by other stuff like occupied cup holders. Tactile recognition is a thing and is designed into many machines; it is critical in aviation. It permits eyes to stay out the window while executing tasks.
 
Now your just making stuff to try to provide evidence of a point. I owned a Durango.... i took less than a few days for it to have the same "Tactical awareness" R being all the way left and D being all the right. The Throw and movement needed was far less than a Joystick. It was a faster and more fluid reaction to grabbing a joystick and navigating a gate, it is also much better than the EU style Joysticks that don't have a gate where there is no tactical feedback to gear selection. The dial in the nature gear selection area you hand falls to it quickly and with very little movement can execute that change of gears.

This to me just seem un-rational resistance to a better solution, because of a incumbent system bias, that was needed 4 decades ago..
 
Yoodie said:
Tactile vs tactical but OK…
Click to expand...
Post 3, and you seem very comfortable going to the grammar well. Those two terms can not be versus, as they are derivative. But yes both, sorry for misquoting you. Both where it is located and how it feel to the touch, can easily be superior to the joystick. Spending time with it I discovered to to be superior.

Besides that does International Jeep strike you well. Here traditionalist would have issues and rear seat would be too small.
 
TripleT said:
Is this a JOKE... REALLY not being cruel but is this a JOKE?

Those Horribly executed products nearly killed the company. I literally, I mean hours away from killing the company. They did a horrible job, the CAD systems became incompatible and all the development time was spent just importing the files.

Please don't use that execution as anything other then a complete and utter failure. The idea of the Caliber was ahead of its time, but so was the Eagle. The execution of those 5 was a illustration of what not to do.

KM is already being implemented so unless it is scuttled it will not be on STLA, I hope that is considered for the next version. More Stelvio sized.
Click to expand...
I did not wish to imply a quality rating on these vehicles, and I was not joking either, my point was the ability to create multiple vehicles from a single platform.These vehicles had morbid interiors, funky transmissions and immoral cost cutting corporate imposed policies, which hurt badly. But the creativity shown was inspirational and the Compass and Patriot, and 200, once updated, were fairly popular and I assume profitable. Bottom line, inspirational thinking has been done at Chrysler before, and on a shoestring budget, why not again with this outstanding, flexible platform? My point requires a bit of an applreciation for imagination application under duress in the past but by taking note of the past, motivate those given much more than imagination alone, to make something outstanding. Imagine that for me please Triple. I call it creative license.
 
Last edited:
bill burke said:
I did not wish to imply a quality rating on these vehicles, and I was not joking either, my point was the ability to create multiple vehicles from a single platform.These vehicles had morbid interiors, funky transmissions and immoral cost cutting corporate imposed policies, which hurt badly. But the creativity shown was inspirational and the Compass and Patriot, and 200, once updated, were fairly popular and I assume profitable. Bottom line, inspirational thinking has been done at Chrysler before, and on a shoestring budget, why not again with this outstanding, flexible platform? My point requires a bit of an applreciation for imagination application under duress in the past but by taking note of the past, motivate those given much more than imagination alone, to make something outstanding. Imagine that for me please Triple. I call it creative license.
Click to expand...

KM is delayed (late calendar 2023 or 2024)/will be STLA Large. Most US product going forward is either going to be on STLA Frame or STLA Large. Current Compass/Horney are the the outliers, next gen Compass will be STLA Medium built in Toluca.

Chrysler Airflow is STLA Large, next generation Pacifica is STLA Large. Hornet was already planned pre-merger, the cake was baked. I'm positive current management wouldn't have approved a vehicle being built in Italy and exported into the US, that was a Sergio gift to Italian unions/pet project.
 
Last edited:
I going to try to be polite, cuz I think you are honest person.... NO. THE ENTIRE THING WAS HORRIBLE. The execution was horrible, the interiors were horrible. The vehicles had no distinctive character beyond the styling. Transmission was poor, the engines were worse of the shared resource. And it wasn't new, it was not creative, Chrysler had been doing since the 80s. And by glory of god it was abandoned. But Daimler having wasted Billions, most of Chryslers war chest, and took it out on Chrysler. Literally ruined the company to a point of it being hours from killed. We should look back at that time with nothing buy horror. That SM and his team were able to salvage a bit from them was a near miracle.

The reason why is the same reason these were a failure. Compromise, Compromise, Compromise, Compromise. The vehicle weren't good at anything, Nothing. They were poorly developed. The computational develop means, you don't need to do that anymore unless your just cheap. You can make a car that is more than a compromised with a styling exercise, even with common build points (platform). The real issue that past 3 models it gets complex in the pull system and manufacturing systems. Unless you have multiple lines.

Its not new or imaginative ..... it is lazy. Make a vehicle good at it task... Not a Styling exercise, PSA sort of does this already and I am NOT a fan.

Maybe it back to the confusion of what a platform is, and what a Architecture is.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top