The Jeep Compass, arguably the 2006 North American International Auto Show's leading whipping boy has been outed (along with company's upcoming Patriot twin) by James Healey at the USA Today as potentially damaging brand extensions. The two vehicles are based on the DaimlerChrysler's on-road-only Dodge Caliber, offering comparatively little of Jeep's trademark off-road prowess, thus calling into question the marque's direction and identity.
The question is: Will DaimlerChrysler's division to forsake the Rubicon Trail for the Primrose Path lead to a sales success, a tarnished image... or both?
This author went so far as to call the Compass the NAIAS' 'Worst In Show' within hours of the vehicle's introduction and has yet to see anything to change his mind. As a Dodge-branded vehicle unencumbered by Jeep's 'mountain man' aura, the Compass might have made for a reasonable offering. In fact, it likely will be a fine offering-- as a Caliber. But as it stands, the model's name takes on an unwelcome ironic sheen for a company clearly losing sight of who it is and where it's going. This is a particular shame given that Jeep has arguably long remained the most self-aware brand in the entire domestic auto industry.
(continue reading after the jump)
For their part, the company's marketing director John Plecha argues: "We're not watering down the brand. We know what we have, and we're protecting it." But it would appear that if Jeep isn't headed for brand currency implosion, it is at least toying with the idea: 2004's oddball Treo city-crawler concept and the production-bound Compass fairly spit on the brand's hard-won off-road credibility and machismo. Oh, there are still people within the company that know how to be proper custodians of the brand's heritage-- they're the good folks responsible for the Hurricane, Gladiator, Jeepster, and Rescue... but producing vehicles like the Compass (and to a lesser extent, the Patriot), have us questioning Who's Zoomin' Who.
The biggest question remains: Will they sell? Possibly. But that doesn't mean the hit to Jeep's image is worth the risk. There are a fair number of vehicles that have sold respectably, yet served to incalculably damage their manufacturer's reputation over the long haul. And given the Compass' projected low entry-price, we can't imagine the model being a cash-cow. Perhaps the Compass and the Patriot exist in large measure to help amortize platform costs for the Caliber, but building three low-margin vehicles in order to justify the existence of one doesn't exactly a shiny business case make. As brands like Jaguar have learned the hard way, not every company needs to be everything to all people-- volume isn't always the answer. The DaimlerChrysler family has many umbrellas under which to house a full lineup of vehicles without soiling the Jeep brand with limp-wristed offerings like the Compass.
Yes, not everyone needs a vehicle of genuine off-road ability. But those people don't need a Jeep... they just want the outfit. And unfortunately for DCX, when too many wannabes start rolling around with the 'outfits' on, those that earned the marque its image in the first place will be observed looking elsewhere.
[Sources: USA Today, Jeep, Jeep Horizons]
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z again, with interior shots
2010 Mazda3 unveiled ahead of LA Auto Show
Spy Shots: Nissan 370Z caught undisguised
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Chevy Corvette Z06
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
Paris 2008: Le Day 1 Wrapup
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Jason @ Mar 21st 2006 12:14PM
John Plecha should be fired for lying to people's faces.
"We're not watering down the brand. We know what we have, and we're protecting it."
Yes, you are. No, you don't. No, you're not.
Gunnar Heinrich @ Mar 21st 2006 12:17PM
This Jeep is as silly as the Mercedes-Benz R-Class - and that car is truly stupid.
http://www.automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com
Brian @ Mar 21st 2006 12:24PM
The dilution of the Jeep brand has already started. Look at the independent front suspension on the Liberty and new Grand Cherokee.
Sure enough someone will point out that the Hummvee has four wheel independent suspension.
Sorry to burst anyones bubble but the Hummer is not an off road vehicle. It's a high mobility MULTI PURPOSE vehicle. Pit it off road against something like a Rubicon and it will get walked all over.
For serious offroad ability a solid axle is simply superior to independent suspension.
Roanoke @ Mar 21st 2006 12:24PM
90% of Jeep owners never take their vehicles off road. I have owned multiple Gr Cherokees 4x4s but never took one off road. I think it is a brilliant idea to have an entry level jeep to get younger buyers into the seats of a Jeep. The Jeep brand won't be diluted. It will just be better and broader.
Jason @ Mar 21st 2006 12:27PM
The Jeep brand is supposed to mean that, if you decide to one day go off-road, it CAN. So yes, the brand identity is diluted. Not sure how this can even be argued.
Steve S @ Mar 21st 2006 12:28PM
The Compass, the Patriot and even the SRT Cherokee are detrimental to the jeep brand. Jeep is one of the best focused or at least used to be brands. When you bought a Jeep you knew exactly what you were getting. What purpose does a non-off roading Jeep vehicle serve? Nothing.
As to the R-class Mercedes it makes perfect sense. Well-off people need a mini-van too, why not a MB mini-van. What other luxury mini-van is there?
Puff Chippy @ Mar 21st 2006 12:30PM
This will be no more damaging than an SUV was to BMW or Cadillac. There's no reason the Jeep image can't be leveraged to sell vehicles designed for what they'll actually be used for. And I bet if you calculated the percentage of Jeeps taken off road it would be far lower than 10%. Maybe 1% but nowhere near ten. It seems like starting with the Liberty that Jeeps have kind of become chick cars anyway so maybe this will just continue the trend.
WheelsTV @ Mar 21st 2006 12:32PM
Compass is to Jeep as Front Wheel Drive is to Muscle Car. Stoopid marketing move.
Jason @ Mar 21st 2006 12:39PM
Once again, doesn't matter what percentage of them go offroad, as long as 100% of them CAN.
Chick vehicles? Who cares, as long as you know that chick can go off-road if she wants to.
Girl in a Jeep = good
Jeep with offroad ability of a Subaru = bad
JH @ Mar 21st 2006 12:39PM
Bad idea, Jeep. Not only will this vehicle dilute what was once (as somwone already mentioned) one of the most focused brands, but it is a completely unneccesary vehicle. Jeep sells off-road capable SUVs. That is what Jeep means to people. If you want to build this car, sell it as a Chrysler, or a Dodge, but why a Jeep? It's not worth it.
Kowell @ Mar 21st 2006 12:40PM
DCX has a good brand segmentation..... if you want cars then you buy Chrysler, trucks are Dodge and 4x4 are Jeep..... if people want an onroad Jeep then they just should buy Chrysler. Then there'S the question of.. "why 2?" why the compass AND the patriot.... one is bad enough
Marc @ Mar 21st 2006 12:45PM
99% of Jeeps aren't taken off road anyway so what's the big deal?
Ken @ Mar 21st 2006 12:50PM
The same people complaining about this move are the same people who would be complaining 5 years from now that DCX should have become more diversified 5 years ago to combat sliding sales. Jeep owners love the brand, they're almost as brand loyal as full size pick up owners. They'll buy Jeep regardless of how watered down some think it's becoming.
hjc @ Mar 21st 2006 12:55PM
#12 is right most people just like to look like they are hard A** off roaders. These new product will sell if they are priced right
Kevin LUnceford @ Mar 21st 2006 12:56PM
John, John, John.......Where were you when Cadilac, Lexus, Mercedes and Porsche and all those other wanna be's started making so called TRUCKs and SUV's. Get a grip, quite gripping, or start writing for another well known blow hard named Andy on 60 min.
Jason @ Mar 21st 2006 12:58PM
They love the brand because previously it was not watered down. Erode the brand, erode the love.
"99% of Jeeps aren't taken off road anyway so what's the big deal?"
Hello, guy who doesn't get it.
RossL @ Mar 21st 2006 12:58PM
Back in the early 80s, I started to notice that more and more urban professional women wanted a Cherokee. Jeep responded by introducing the Grand Cherokee - a more chick-friendly 4x4. Then came the Liberty - a totally chick vehicle. And now ... this.
Let's face it: Jeep long ago became a chick brand. The only difference now is that they're going after younger women with less money to spend.
If you're a serious off-roader and you drive a Jeep, good for you - you must be secure in your masculinity. But SUVs in general are marketed to women. Real men drive cars.
DriftPunch @ Mar 21st 2006 1:02PM
IFS doesn't suck for stock off road ability, it sucks for those who want to lift the vehicle or play with gear ratios. As you might expect, those people are few and far between.
Funny that Toyota trucks have been going IFS for 2 decades, and few people would call them ineffective.
This being said, there is a huge difference between a truck IFS and that of a FWD car. A car chassis being morphed into a truck IS a disaster, but the concept of IFS is not the cause of that...
Mike Homeniuk @ Mar 21st 2006 1:02PM
Regardless of the fact that the Compass will dilute the Jeep image (and it will), this has to be one of the homliest, butt-ugly vehicles since the Aztec. A horribly disfigured bastard child of an AMC Gremlin and Eagle with a smattering of Jeep DNA (like the grille, maybe). This abomination would dilute ANY brand's image.
klaatu @ Mar 21st 2006 1:06PM
Brian, I have some interesting historical news for you.
The ORIGINAL Jeep Wagoneer (and related J-10 series picukps) introduced in 1963 with an overhead camshaft hemi-head adaptation of the Kaiser (Continental) L-head six? The four wheel drive variants had an articulated (independent) front drive axle - with a universal joint in the middle, and of course, universal joints on the ends (so the front wheels could steer). NOT a solid front axle (with universal joints on the ends, so the front wheels could steer).
Jeep later substituted a solid front axle on 4x4's to decrease the number of warrantee claims on the problematical system, and replaced the OHC six built in it's own plants with a bought-in American Motors OHV six in about 1967) and added an American Motors built (NOT Chevy) 327 cu.in. V8 in 1965 as an option, too). (American Motors did not buy Kaiser Jeep until 1970).
The designer of the OHC six was a European and he built the engine with too many complexities - it was NOT suited to off-road or 1960's American use!
A front live axle does not mean a "Jeep" is more of a "Jeep" than one with independent front suspension.
Brands can be adapted to what the manufacturers want them to be.
Whether it's a mistake or not, we'll see, won't we?