consensus on new commander?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
> I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
> about 450 miles.
Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
> I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
> it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
> ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
> handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
> shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
had trouble with when I demo one this week.
> Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
> The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
> My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
screen
> wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
certainly live without it otherwise.
> Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
detached
> from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
the
> road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
attention.
Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
> First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
> Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
> The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
> Just my opinions
> I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
Thanks!
-Bill Kearney
> about 450 miles.
Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
> I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
> it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
> ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
> handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
> shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
had trouble with when I demo one this week.
> Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
> The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
> My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
screen
> wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
certainly live without it otherwise.
> Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
detached
> from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
the
> road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
attention.
Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
> First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
> Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
> The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
> Just my opinions
> I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
Thanks!
-Bill Kearney
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
If your Cherokee didn't like to go 80 there was something wrong with it
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
If your Cherokee didn't like to go 80 there was something wrong with it
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
If your Cherokee didn't like to go 80 there was something wrong with it
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
or you really had it set up for rock crawling or something.
Mine is quite happy cruising at 80, will do it all day with no problems.
If the Commander was about 1/3 smaller and had a 4.0 I6 in it I'd be
interested, as it is...
I'd rather have a Studebaker Commander!
http://www.stationwagon.com/gallery/...Commander.html
It's even the same body style as my Cherokee!
Jeff DeWitt
Bill Kearney wrote:
>>I had the opportunity to drive it to the beach for the weekend. Round trip
>>about 450 miles.
>
>
> Excellent, feedback from someone that's ACTUALLY DRIVEN ONE.
>
>
>>I'm 6'2 and 325lbs,
>
>
> I'm 6'4" and about a hundred pounds less.
>
>
>>it seems roomy enough at first, but down the road a
>>ways, the door handle was digging into my left knee, the emergency brake
>>handle was digging into my right thigh, and the armrest has an unnatural
>>shape to it that makes my forearm hurt when using it on a long trip.
>
>
> I greatly despise how most vehicles these days insist on having a center
> console. I want some room to shift the legs. I'll take note of what you've
> had trouble with when I demo one this week.
>
>
>>Rear room was adequate, but my wifes Explorer is better.
>
>
> That's the alternative vehicle being considered.
>
>
>>The windshield seemed short in height, but I got used to that.
>
>
>>My 8 year old loved the DVD player and the wireless head set, but the
>
> screen
>
>>wouldn't turn to face her, just faced straight back.
>
>
> I could care less about gadetry like that. I don't want/need it. It no
> doubt gets foisted on us because of inclusion in other packages. But I'd
> certainly live without it otherwise.
>
>
>>Engine power is phenomenal. All you need and more, but, you are so
>
> detached
>
>>from your surroundings from the extreme quiet, you don't get a feel for
>
> the
>
>>road or the engine, and it's very easy to speed if you don't pay
>
> attention.
>
> Heh, unlike my old Cherokee. I joke, the only way it'd ever do 80 would be
> as it plummeted off an escarpment. Even a friend's Bronco I've driven gets
> wiggly anywhere faster than 75.
>
>
>>First tankful mileage was 13-1/2 highway. Second tank got up to around 17.
>
>
> Got the 'lead out' of your right foot on seeing the MPG? Or just stopped
> kicking down the throttle on the hemi 'for fun'?
>
>
>>Remember, it's a brand new vehicle not yet broken in.
>>The ride is a little bit on the soft side.
>>Just my opinions
>>I guess I like it overall, but not anymore for long trips.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Bill Kearney
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Jeep just knew a good idea when the stole it <G>
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Jeep just knew a good idea when the stole it <G>
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Jeep just knew a good idea when the stole it <G>
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
A few other familiar names that Studebaker used first...
Daytona (DC)
Challenger (DC)
Golden Hawk (Jeep)
Sky Hawk (Buick)
Transtar (International)
Wagonaire (I know, Jeep used Wagoneer, both were designed by Brooks
Stevens and both had similar rear end treatments, although only the
Studebakers roof actually moved)
Land Cruiser (Toyota)
Interestingly Studebaker built a special version of the Land Cruiser
just for export that was intended for use off road in desert
environments. It had oversize tires, heavy duty everything, opened up
wheel wells, about everything you can think of to make a 2 wheel drive
car perform well in the desert.
One great old Studebaker name that I don't expect to see used again is
"Dictator"!
Jeff DeWitt
L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> The Studebaker Commander, ahead of it's time:
> http://images.google.com/images?svnu...mander&spell=1
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Bill Kearney wrote:
>
>>So what's the consensus on how the commander stacks up? I'm in need of
>>replacing my ancient Cherokee and the 0% deals on the commander make it
>>worth considering.
>>
>>Anyone here actually have one?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Personal preference, I found the transition from an XJ to WJ quite a
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Personal preference, I found the transition from an XJ to WJ quite a
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: consensus on new commander?
Personal preference, I found the transition from an XJ to WJ quite a
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
change, I don't think I would want to got all the way to the Commander.
But that is just a personal preference.
"Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bI2dnWVLAv3XFoXYnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> If you can get the financing on a Grand Cherokee I would go with that.
>
> Why? The ride's apparently quite a bit mushier on the JGC than the
> Commander.
>
>> Ultimately it comes down to what you want and what you want to do with it
>> once you have it.
>
> I'd have bought another Cherokee in a heartbeat. Plain, simple and
> durable.
> Of course they'd rather squander brand loyalties and shove this latest
> crap
> on us instead.
>
