Jeep comanche


#1

why did jeep quit making the comanche pickup.


#2

According to wiki:
“The decision to phase out the Jeep Comanche “came from a combination of two factors— low sales and Chrysler’s attempts to make the Jeep brand fit into the Chrysler hierarchy of Plymouth, Dodge, and Chrysler models” with Jeep housing SUVs and Dodge making trucks. As sales dropped, the Comanche was planned for discontinuation. In 1990, the National Council of Jeep/Eagle dealers asked Chrysler to discontinue the Comanche, and allow them to sell a version of the Dodge Dakota pickup. The company decided to cease production of the Comanche on June 12, 1992, after only a few thousand more trucks rolled off the Toledo, Ohio assembly line.”


#3

I believe it shared many components and was based on the highly profitable Jeep Cherokee. Since Cherokee was a best seller and the Comanche had to compete with the more popular Dodge Dakota…the Comanche didn’t have a chance. It made great business sense to discontinue the Comanche and concentrate on the more profitable models. I owned a Jeep Comanche but the Dakota’s, S-10’s and Rangers of that era were better trucks.


#4

Let’s not forget that the Comanche wasn’t a “real” truck

It was unibody, as far as I know

Wouldn’t that mean that it couldn’t compete on an even footing with the Ranger and S10 . . . ?


#5

And the S10 was replaced by the POS Colorado, which might also now be gone

And the Dakota is gone . . . no great loss there, from what I understand

And the Ranger is gone . . . that is a little bit of a shame, although it was showing its age badly

Are there ANY domestic small trucks still being built?


#6

@db4690, I guess you mean Detroit 3 mid-size trucks? Tacoma is assembled in San Antonio and Frontier is built in Smyrna, TN. GM will bring back Colorado and Canyon in 2015, and it’s too early for test drives by the automotive press.


#7

My brother-in-law had an earlier Comanche, which was definitely a frame-based 4 wheel drive truck. That was in the 70s. He liked it but it was hard to get parts for and the body was rust-prone. He later settled for a GM 3/4 ton.


#8

@jtsanders

Well, at least there are mid-size trucks actually being built here

Even if they don’t have an American badge on them . . .

Dated as they were, the Rangers were much better trucks than the Colorado . . . IMO

Here’s hoping the 2015 Colorado will be much improved


#9

@Docnick - that earlier Comanche was frame-based, the last one was unibody like the smaller Cherokee.


#10

@db4960, GM seems to be building vehicles that are much more competitive today than they did 10 years ago. I expect that they will be much closer to Tacoma and Frontier if that’s who they want to compete with. Or they could more like the HiJET. The there wouldn’t be any competition!


#11

Imho, Jeep Comanche wouldn’t sell because truck people in general are more knowledgable about what they buy then many car and SUV people. Just putting a Jeep row of teeth on an SuV seems to impress enough people but does not do the same to an inferior truck. The same is happening to Ford Ranger and smaller GMs. It is entirely possible IMHO, that both Ford and GM as well as Chrysler could easily make trucks in the intermediate class that could be competitive enough to really challenge Tacoma. But, Jeep never made a real truck, and Ford and Chevy GM just never seemed to want to take sales from their big trucks which is where the money is. Each has found their own nitches and the big time pick up truck makers, Ford, GM and Ram know where the big bucks are to be made. You will see some very good small truck offerings from Ford, GM and perhaps Jeep…but only over seas where the big trucks don’t sell as well.


#12

@jtsanders

I agree that GM is building more competitive vehicles nowadays

They meant well with the Colorado. It did have rack and pinion steering, it was easier to work on, it had a very modern engine design, and handled acceptably well. Unfortunately, it was put together shoddily, didn’t hold up well, and the engine had its fair share of problems.


#13
Unfortunately, it was put together shoddily, didn't hold up well, and the engine had its fair share of problems.

If the vehicle is put together shoddily…then IMHO it’s NOT competitive.

I thought the Colorado was a nice vehicle when it first came out…But I know a couple of people who owned them and they had a lot of problems…That leaves me out from buying one.


#14

I test drove a V8 Colorado one time, was not impressed; wasn’t really impressed with Tacoma or Ranger, either. But the Colorado I test drove felt like it was 50 years behind in brake technology. I dunno if it was because the truck had sat on the lot for awhile and rust had formed on the rotors, or what, but I felt like I was trying to stop my old Chevelle and not a brand new(at the time) vehicle; the brake pedal was a suggestion, not a necessity.


#15

Must be why mid-size trucks are so unpopular. Even though the Tacoma is #5 in the market, it has less than 8% of the market.


#16

@MikeInNH

When I said GM is building more competitive vehicles, notice I didn’t say which ones those are?

I’ll guarantee you the Colorado isn’t on that list


#17

Nether Ford nor GM is ( was) interested in a buyer walking into a showroom and purchasing a Ranger or Colorado over there full size pick up because it was nearly as competitive. All, cut their teeth on their full size trucks first. Toyota and Nissan started out with successful smaller trucks first. Both Toyota and Nissan build arguably the best 4 cylinder gas truck motors which are really the only motor of choice that separates a small trucks attributes from a low end 6 cylinder larger truck. In reality, all trucks are pretty archaic compared to cars. The full size are much more civilized and practical when used as a real truck should be. They are just more practical in all their variants. That’s why they sell more. They are much more profitable for the company that makes them too.
Btw, what is so modern about GM taking an existing motor and lopping of one and two cylinders, just to save developmental costs on a more practical small truck motor. ?


#18

Are you talking about the Atlas motor?

That is a much more modern design than the old 5.7 V8 and the 4.3 V6


#19

The Colorado/Canyon are from the dark days before the CTS showed GM what could happen if they built a handsome, comfortable car that handles well, is quick, and efficient.


#20

I’ve got a 2004 Canyon in my work bay right now

Only 21K, but it’s already falling apart