2006 Jeep Commander 65th Anniversary Edition 3.7l 4x4-3rd Row Seating-1 Owner on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Behind the scenes of our subcompact crossover comparison

The cameras had been set up for almost an hour, and now, the living room filled with the sweetness of freshly brewed blonde roast. The late-summer sun had just started peaking over towering maples. In a week the colors will start changing, the inevitable sign of the coming gray skies and snow. Half past eight, the editors arrived. The Scandinavian inspired house that served as the headquarters for our subcompact crossover comparison couldn’t accommodate all seven of us, so they had stayed at a turn of the century farmhouse down the road. While geese, chickens, cats and sheep made for an authentic Northern Michigan farm experience, ingredients for a good nightÂ’s sleep they were not. Within minutes Red Bulls cracked open and short, cocoa-colored mugs appeared, filled with a variety of caffeinated beverages.  “I thought we were gonna have fried eggs,” Editor-in-Chief Greg Migliore said, smiling, before refusing a muffin. Associate Producer Alex Malburg ran from camera to camera, adjusting focus and exposure, trying to keep up with the ever-changing light, which poured into the room faster each minute.  “I was promised food. IÂ’m not filming.” Consumer Editor Jeremy KorzeniewskiÂ’s sarcasm thinly veiled his true feelings. To keep the group content I promised a craft-services buffet next time.  For the second time, we shot our comparison just outside of Traverse City. While we took advantage of a local off-road park for the first, this round proved a bit more tame, utilizing the hilly, winding, wine-country roads that define the region.  An air of nervousness could be detected. Only one person knew the outcome of our test, Senior Green Editor John Beltz Snyder. I found myself both impressed and surprised he had kept this secret overnight, though I came to find out later that he revealed the winner to Producer Amr Sayour on the drive to dinner the evening before.  The cameras started rolling, the audio recording, but the caffeine hadnÂ’t yet entered the bloodstream, with one exception. Associate Editor Joel Stocksdale sipped his lime green Mountain Dew. That seemed to be working, as he passionately laid out his argument for the Kia Soul and his preference for winter tires over all-wheel drive. From behind the camera I silently disagreed with him. “No one buys winter tires,” Jeremy argued. As we consumed more coffee, the sun came up, and so did the energy of the debate.

The Apple of the auto industry isn't Tesla, it's Jeep

Whenever Apple is going to have a new product for sale in its stores, the fanboys line up in such great numbers that it's surprising Ticketmaster hasn't figured out a way to capitalize on the multitude of anxious buyers with credit cards ready to go. When Elon Musk talks about a new car being added to the lineup, there is an analogous group of people, and Musk has cleverly set up a model in which people place deposits for their place in line. The number of deposits (two per customer only, it should be noted) for the Model 3 is some 400,000. Because Tesla is a Silicon Valley company that has a highly desirable, highly designed suite of products for which there is demand the likes of which is completely uncharacteristic for the category, it is often compared to Apple. After all, has anyone gotten into line to buy a Windows phone? Do you even remember the Zune? So it must be that Tesla is like Apple. But there is one nontrivial problem with this comparison: Apple sells its products in mass quantity. Tesla, even though it just had its best quarter ever, delivering a record 25,418 vehicles - up 69 percent over the first quarter of 2016 - is still, when compared to the car industry in general, selling a specialized product. No, the automotive brand most like Apple is Jeep. Just as with Apple's quickly identified design language - either for the physical phones and computers or the interfaces for same - there is no mistaking a Jeep. Like Apple's legion of fans, there are people for whom a Jeep is not merely a form of transportation, but a statement about one's way of life. Like the companies that wish they could have designs that are Apple-like and do their utmost to have a similar objects or appearances (sometimes landing them in court, a la Samsung), is there a single automotive company that wouldn't like to have some of Jeep's magic? While there aren't people who are lined up outside of dealerships when a new Jeep goes on sale, there is probably more interest in the forthcoming Wrangler than in the accumulation of interest in a half-dozen other vehicles from other companies. And like Apple, Jeep is a comparative volume play. Last year FCA US LLC delivered 926,376 Jeeps. Walter P. Chrysler and the Dodge Brothers must be spinning at high velocity in their graves, because the U.S. total for Chrysler brand was 231,972, and Dodge was 506,858. The sum of the two - 738,830 - is well shy of Jeep's sales. On a global basis, Jeep sold some 1.4 million units in 2016.

Georgia judge slashes verdict to $40M in Jeep fire case

A judge in Georgia has drastically reduced the damages that Fiat Chrysler Automobiles will have to pay to the family of Remington Walden, who a court said died as a result of the unsafe design of one of its vehicles. While the jury originally awarded the family $150 million at FCA's expense, Judge J. Kevin Chason cut that amount to $40 million, the Detroit News reported. The automaker may still appeal the verdict. The case dates to March 2012, when a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee in which four-year-old Walden was riding was rear-ended by another vehicle. Due to what the jury ruled was an unsafe fuel tank, a fire erupted, and Walden died in the fire. The family's lawyers successfully argued that the automaker knew there was a problem and didn't take sufficient action to address the issue, while FCA countered that its vehicles met the applicable safety standards when they were built. The jury found FCA 99 percent responsible for the fire and Walden's death, reserving the final one percent for the driver who caused the crash. The court awarded the Waldens $150 million in damages to be paid by the automaker: $120 million for wrongful death, and a further $30 million for pain and suffering. FCA, however, argued that the damages were disproportionate to the incident, noting that the $120 million was 11 times higher and the $30 million four times higher than any comparable awards upheld on appeal in the state. Chason agreed and cut the penalties extensively. The Walden family has reportedly accepted the reduced verdict. But according to the News, company spokesman Michael Palese said, "The reduction in the damage awards does not cure the many errors that tainted this verdict and denied FCA US a fair trial. We are considering our legal options." News Source: The Detroit NewsImage Credit: Jeep Government/Legal Recalls Jeep lawsuit court