2007 Jeep Commander Review
This review was written when the 2007 Jeep Commander was new.
The Commander delivers solid off-road performance, but can't match the on-road capabilities and gas mileage of others in its class.
Reviewers say that the 2007 Jeep Commander is a niche vehicle for people who like to go off-road and need seating for seven. Echoing many reviewers, Forbes recommends the Commander if you "want a full-size, rugged SUV that can tackle off-road terrain but is also decked out with high-end features; you need seating for seven." Automotive.com notes that the "2007 Jeep Commander should be attractive to families that need four-wheel-drive capability for vacations, camping, or challenging winters."
MSN points out that the Commander, introduced in 2006, "joins more than a dozen SUVs that in recent years have added third-row seats. The trend is driven, in large part, by active American families who want more seating room but don't necessarily want to buy a minivan to get it." While agreeing that it's great to have the extra seating, Car and Driver warns, "If your goal is simply to seat seven, buy a minivan."
In a head-to-head competiton with the Ford Explorer conducted by Car and Driver, the Jeep Commander came out on top. The reviewer concluded, "Overall, the Commander felt more connected to terra firma and was slightly more gratifying to drive than the Explorer ...."
The Commander's starting manufacturer's suggested retail price is close to the starting price for a midsize Jeep Grand Cherokee. As MSN notes, "This makes the Commander seem like a bargain, except that prices can rise to luxury-car levels quickly. With a HEMI V8, four-wheel drive and leather seats, the Commander is near $40,000." With skyrocketing gas prices, fuel efficiency is a major deciding factor when purchasing an SUV. The reports "I'm not only talking about the purchase price. A week's worth of driving around the Washington metropolitan area yielded a $50 tab for regular unleaded gasoline." IntelliChoice gives the 2007 Jeep Commander a value rating of "poor" for its predicted five-year total cost of ownership, compared to other vehicles in its class.