The soon to be released Jeep Commander.

The soon to be released Jeep Commander...

http://jeepin.com/news/commander/

Looks like a range rover knock off...

BE wrote:

> The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>
> http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>
> Looks like a range rover knock off...
>

I'd rather have a real Commander

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/55coupe.html

It may not do as well off road, but it's sure prettier.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:

>The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>
>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>
>Looks like a range rover knock off...

What a disappointment!

I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated
pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I have
now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage.

This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs,
measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8 (401)
and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its own
road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck.

It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru WRX
wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and get
some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will likely
continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and up.

Dave Head

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>
>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>>
>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>>
>>Looks like a range rover knock off...
>
> What a disappointment!
>
> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated
> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I
> have
> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage.
>
> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs,
> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8
> (401)
> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its
> own
> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck.
>
> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru
> WRX
> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and
> get
> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will
> likely
> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and
> up.
>
> Dave Head

It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a
direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk
rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8
fuel mileage will be about the same.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote:

>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>>
>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>>>
>>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>>>
>>>Looks like a range rover knock off...
>>
>> What a disappointment!
>>
>> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car accelerated
>> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I
>> have
>> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good mileage.
>>
>> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs,
>> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8
>> (401)
>> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its
>> own
>> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck.
>>
>> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru
>> WRX
>> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo and
>> get
>> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will
>> likely
>> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and
>> up.
>>
>> Dave Head
>
>It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a
>direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk
>rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8
>fuel mileage will be about the same.

Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the horizon
- we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be
ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable
future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of
breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on electricity
generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long enough
for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point our
energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. If we start
building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much better
off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a more
fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road.

Dave Head

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
> Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the
> horizon
> - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be
> ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable
> future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of
> breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on
> electricity
> generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long
> enough
> for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point
> our
> energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists. If we
> start
> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much
> better
> off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a
> more
> fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road.
>
> Dave Head

It's on the horizon:

http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html

> It's on the horizon:
>
> http://www.ne.doe.gov/NucPwr2010/NucPwr2010.html

Uh oh - Bush and his crimina... uh.. buddies won't go for that.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>
>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>>>>
>>>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>>>>
>>>>Looks like a range rover knock off...
>>>
>>> What a disappointment!
>>>
>>> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car
>>> accelerated
>>> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I
>>> have
>>> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good
>>> mileage.
>>>
>>> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs,
>>> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8
>>> (401)
>>> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its
>>> own
>>> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck.
>>>
>>> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru
>>> WRX
>>> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo
>>> and
>>> get
>>> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will
>>> likely
>>> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and
>>> up.
>>>
>>> Dave Head
>>
>>It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a
>>direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk
>>rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8
>>fuel mileage will be about the same.
>
> Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the
> horizon
> - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be
> ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable
> future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of
> breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on
> electricity
> generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long
> enough
> for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point
> our
> energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists.

Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and
plutonium.

> If we start
> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much
> better
> off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a
> more
> fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road.

I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?"

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 12:51:36 -0500, "Mark Stahl" >
wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:18:44 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:55:37 GMT, "BE" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The soon to be released Jeep Commander...
>>>>>
>>>>>http://jeepin.com/news/commander/
>>>>>
>>>>>Looks like a range rover knock off...
>>>>
>>>> What a disappointment!
>>>>
>>>> I want the Jeep Cherokee back. 6 cyl engine in a 3500 lb car
>>>> accelerated
>>>> pretty good and got about 20 mpg on the highway. That's my '98 that I
>>>> have
>>>> now. My '93 was 3050 lbs and went faster with not quite as good
>>>> mileage.
>>>>
>>>> This dang thing is 4700 lbs! Big. Hell, my '79 Jeep was only 4500 lbs,
>>>> measured on a grain elevator scale back at that time. That had a big V8
>>>> (401)
>>>> and sucked gas real bad too. This one will need a V8 to get out of its
>>>> own
>>>> road at that kind of weight, and the mileage will also suck.
>>>>
>>>> It still looks like my next 4X4 will not be a Jeep. Prolly get a Subaru
>>>> WRX
>>>> wagon - closest I can get to something acceptably large to haul cargo
>>>> and
>>>> get
>>>> some decent gas mileage - I drive about 35,000 miles a year and will
>>>> likely
>>>> continue to do so. I don't need to own a gas hog at $2.00 a gallon and
>>>> up.
>>>>
>>>> Dave Head
>>>
>>>It won't be that bad on power. The Chevy Trailblazer EXT, which will be a
>>>direct competitor, is heavier, and it still move along at a pretty brisk
>>>rate with the V8. The Chevy gets 14/19 with the V8. I figure the Jeep V8
>>>fuel mileage will be about the same.
>>
>> Yeah, but I want better than that. I can see $3.50 a gallon gas on the
>> horizon
>> - we're not finding any more oil, and China and India are just going to be
>> ratcheting up their consumption, driving up the price for the forseeable
>> future. There's no end to it unless someone comes up with some kind of
>> breakthru - finding a way to run cars, truck, trains, and planes on
>> electricity
>> generated with nuclear power. We should have enough Uranium for long
>> enough
>> for the physicists to finally figure out nuclear fusion, at which point
>> our
>> energy problems will be solved for as long as this planet exists.
>
>Fusion utilizes hydrogen. Fission uses heavier elements like uranium and
>plutonium.

Right - not inconsistent with what I wrote.

>
>> If we start
>> building infrastructure that uses electricity _now_, we'll be that much
>> better
>> off when they get the source problem figured out. Meanwhile, I want a
>> more
>> fuel efficient vehicle than that, that also will get out of its own road.
>
>I have never heard that expression. Isn't it "get out of its own way?"

I've been hearing/using that for quite some time. Dunno... maybe its not
world-wide.

Dave Head

I love my '98 Grand Cherokee and will drive it til it won't drive no
more, but I still sorta like what they could do with the commander.