The fact that the XJ Wagoneer didn’t pan out as a replacement for the Grand Wagoneer was a minor issue, given that it was just a re-trimmed Cherokee. But the failure of the Comanche pickup must have been a harder pill to swallow. This one took a bit more doing: the rear of the Comanche has a separate frame under the bed that ties into the unibody Cherokee front body section, called Uni-Frame. Well, that’s not that hard. Still, when the Comanche came out, riding on the heels of the red-hot Cherokee, it seemed set to take the compact pickup market by storm. What happened?
It’s more like what didn’t happen: an extended cab. The Comanche came in two bed lengths, six and seven feet (shown here). But there was no extended cab option, and by 1986, when the Comanche arrived, that was practically the kiss of death, especially so in the compact pickup field. Both the Chevy S10 and the Ranger were sporting extended cabs by the time of the Comanche’s arrival.
Sure, all the competitors in the compact truck field were still selling some bare-bones short-bed regular cab trucks. But that’s not where the money was. The profitable sweet spot was with well-equipped extended-cab trucks, and the Comanche flubbed that. Especially since it wasn’t trying to compete on ultimate low price, but more on the Jeep brand.
The Comanche came in two and four-wheel drive versions, and the same engine lineup as the Cherokee. When the new 170 hp 4.0 L six arrived in 1987, the Comanche was totally in a league of its own, a genuine sport truck. Nothing else could touch it performance wise. But that didn’t solve the sales challenges either.
In addition to the lack of extended cab, there may have been other factors at play. By this time, Jeep dealers had moved away from the trucky Jeep lineage, as the sweet spot in the business was selling loaded Cherokee Limiteds to Mommy and Daddy. Profit margins on those Cherokees were significantly higher. And eventually, after Chrysler bought AMC, the production lines were better put to use building more of those Cherokees. The highest sales years for Cherokees came shortly after the Comanche was finally sent off to the reservation, after the 1992 model year. Chrysler had the Dodge Dakota, which also used the Jeep four as a base engine, and did offer an extended cab.
Just one question: Are those body side stripes squiggly on purpose, or have they started to sag?
Lack of a extended cab didn’t help, but wonder if is simply because its a Jeep. Jeep pickups were always a tough sell next to their Ford/GM/Chryco competition.
Jeep never pushed pickups as hard as sport utilities. And the J series was 4×4 only except for a few model years whebln it was called Gladiator. In those days, 4x4s were a fraction of pickup sales. Ive never seen figures on how the Jeeps sold vs only the 4×4 versions of the other 3.
Interesting question about other brands’ 4×4 sales. I have no idea what the answer was, except to say it wouldn’t surprise me if a noticeably higher % of Dodge sales were 4×4, since they both launched factory 4WD and aggressively marketed the Power Wagons; it was more of a yes, we have proposition for Ford and GM.
I-H also did a strong 4×4 business, and offered factory 4WD before Dodge. It’s worth noting both Dodge and I-H had significant wartime experience with light and medium duty 4×4 vehicles- as had Jeep, of course.
Oh well, I guess HALF of a hood deflector is better than NO deflector.
Please, take that thing off, and just replace it. Lol
And fit a clear one. Let the stylists’ original design show.
Oh – did Jeep use stylists? 🙂
Well, Jeep was a division of AMC… And we all know the oddballs and ugly ducklings that were spawn there. 😉
The 80’s Jeep Cherokees, Comanches and Wagoneers lines were so chiseled and angled, it looks like their designer was Bizarro Superman.
I really liked these when they came out (I was driving a Bronco II back then). Great looking vehicles with the traditional big Jeep pickup details built in. I believe Paul is right on the money about the super or extra cab feature that was lacking on these trucks. Sorry to see Jeep has not capitalized on the small truck market by bringing the Comanche back.
Nor do I much care for the direction GM has taken the Colorado and Canyon, with the exception of the torquey diesel. Looking at any of these new models, they make my 2006 Colorado look like a Chevy Luv in their size proportions. And sooner or later, Ford will make another reappearance into the small truck game with their own new Ranger which will be sized to that of an early 90’s F-150.
Nice catch of a cool truck.
Jeep DID try to bring a “small” pickup truck to market a few years ago: the Wrangler had an “optional” pickup truck bed that re-created the Scrambler. It’s my opinion, perhaps wrong, that the high price dealers charged for the conversion of Wrangler to Scrambler doomed it’s success.
I agree most folks probably were unaware that Jeep had a pickup in the Comanche’s early years, but when it had to compete with the Dakota….sometimes at the same dealerships, that didn’t help.
Those were factory all the way, and based off the CJ-7. I had one in college…one of my favorite vehicles ever made.
The JK-8 kit available thru Mopar is an aftermarket conversion, and the cottage house industry has several entries doing something similar. Everything from retrofit halfcabs to full frame stretches with crewcabs and separate beds are available if you have the money.
I found myself at a Dodge/Chrysler/Jeep dealer a few years ago getting a part for a friends car I was doing some work on. I didn’t know Mopar’s part numbering system (I know Fords and some GM) so I spent a fairly long time working with the counter guy looking through the computer and their inventory, and while he plugged away/searched I went through pretty much every brochure and pamphlet at the time and came across that Wrangler pickup, and was in LOVE. When I finally got what I needed I just casually asked him about the conversion kit and the figure he mentioned was beyond obscene, well into 5 figures as I recall. He jokingly said “yeah never sold anyone on that accessory yet”
$5000, for just a conversion? That must be some high-grade crack those dealers are smoking.
For $5000-6000, you can buy an original or good condition driver CJ8 Jeep Scrambler, for the price of that ugly wannabe. No thanks.
I miss my 82 Jeep Scrambler… Sold it because it was a gas hog, and my job was only part time. 🙁
That cost is on top of the price of an Unlimited and the aren’t cheap. Basically, you have to have STUPID money and/or a Jeep with lite-moderate rear damage to consider the kit. But a fair number are out there, so someone’s buying them. If people are willing to spend that on a conversion, they why FCA hasn’t done one in house for far cheaper is beyond me.
“For $5000-6000, you can buy an original or good condition driver CJ8 Jeep Scrambler”
Not likely. You cant touch a Scrambler in any kind of condition for much less than $10K unless you get Powerball lucky. I paid over $5k for mine in 1995 just before these got insanely sought after and it was nowhere near in ‘great’ condition. It had issues.
Uh, YES, likely.
There is/was an 1982 Jeep Scrambler going for $6000 or BO, on Craigslist about 5 months ago… The black paint was mint, and it had a 4.5 inch lift, with chrome wagon wheels.
This one was on CL for two months, obviously they can’t be THAT in demand. I’m surprised this one didn’t sell… I think the ad expired, it was in RI.
A Scrambler for $10,000? What is it made of gold?
Only place you’ll find a Scrambler that high, is on EBay… And we all know how ludicrous those prices are.
Also, WHY would you pay $5000, for a Jeep with issues?
I sold my 82, 5 inch lift, white E/T wagon wheels, Rancho suspension, KC Hilites, PIAA fog lights, Hooker headers for $2700, back in the 90’s… Other than the ugly, faded green paint, it ran great.
These actually drove really nicely, and they performed remarkably. The extended cab deficiency is a bit of a revelation, because it just didn’t seem that important at the time. Looking back, many of the pickups my friends’ families had were extended cab, but lots of trucks owned by teenagers were not. Extended cabs didn’t seem great, because being jammed into their jump seats with a bunch of accumulated junk wasn’t any fun. Even half-doors were in the future.
My college roommate bought a new Dodge Ram Cummins 4WD, manual transmission long bed pickup with a two or three tone paint job and every option imaginable in a pickup in 1992. It cost about as much as a duplex in Blacksburg, VA at the time. It had a single cab though, and nobody commented on it, because all the other pickup trucks in the AGR fraternity parking lot were single cabs too.
The failure of the Comanche was disappointing, but you can’t blame anyone for buying a Toyota instead. Jeep had great designers and engineers well into Chrysler ownership, but they never had a partner committed to quality. Now they don’t even have impressive engineers or designers, but they’re still teamed up with yet another company known for its incompetence at making cars.
I have to one of the few people left, that actually prefer the Reg cab, long box. However, the size, has grown out of control.
I like the general look of the Comanche. I think the last one I seen, was Helen Hunts, in “Twister”
+1 on preference for shorties. The Twister truck was a fullsize J-10 with the Honcho package. I shrieked like a little girl when u saw it get smashed, and i still cringe at that scene. Waste of a beautiful example of a rare truck.
Always like the Comanche. Would love to have one today. An honest pickup. what they all were at one time. If I need more passenger room, I have one of my Buicks, or the Lincoln LS If I need more interior load space, the Edge comes into play. I would drive one of these with pride and use it as intended.
One thing that probably didn’t help was that AMC/Jeep/Renault/Eagle dealers tended to not exactly be the largest or most modern. A lot of customers may not have even known these existed, or may not have been interested in going out of their way to find one.
A 7-foot Comanche with a pickup camper would be a great camping rig to my reckoning.
Agreed , this appears to be a nice basic honest pickup truck , just what America used to love .
6′ short beds and standard cabs make them pleasant to drive , even spiritedly , and a 6′ bed will carry bales of hay and fence posts , bags of cement , Contractors tools or motocycles .
Short beds are also very easy to parallel park in town where I guess most pickups are now sold .
I remember when my Son was very young , sitting in the middle of my old ’46 Chevy between his Mother and I , it was snug to say the least but really didn’t need any more space although I lusted for more . the across in my ’31 Ford ‘A’ Model pickup wasn’t _ever_ going to happen =8-) .
Then she left and I got a ’49 Chevy 3100 W/ 6′ bed , plenty of room for two in there , occasionally three when I had to rescue someone far from home .
I’d give this cute little truck a go if it had a 6 cylinder engine .
I look at the behemoths I share the road with now as I buzz along in my ’69 Chevy C/10 short bed stepper , when new it was a full size pickup , now it looks almost dainty and I like the size very much ~ no wasted space for this 6′ 240# guy .
-Nate
Count me in as liking this. Right size,Right styling, It’s a Jeep, What’s not to like?
It’s probably just my age, but to me the only “true” pickup trucks are regular cabs. Everything else is a family SUV with a bed where the cargo area should be.
+1
+2
-1 Not having dry, secure, interior storage sucks. Sometimes the good old days weren’t that great.
+1 to you. An extended cab pickup with a 6.5′ bed is many times more useful than a regular cab with an 8′ bed.
And my crew-cab long-bed is awesome. Until it’s time to park…
I don’t get it ~
Do you have to take the whole Family shopping and buy two Months worth of groceries at one time ? .
One person and six FULL bags of groceries should easily fit in this cab .
-Nate
An extended cab pickup is not that useful and put a 6.5′ bed on it and it is a poser vehicle. If a truck can’t carry building materials it is not much of a use as a truck to me. Sure you can store stuff in there but you really can’t carry people comfortably. Give me 4 full size doors and an 8′ bed.
It is not about taking the family shopping for groceries it is about taking the building materials and the crew to the job site and having room for some tools out of the rain/locked up too.
There’s no “authenticity test” which specifies that the only valid use for a crew-cab pickup is hauling a construction crew and a bed full of building supplies.
“Not useful to me” ≠ “poser vehicle”, and it’s the height of self-importance to think that way.
I can take an extended cab, sometimes. I can’t take the current crop of trucks at all.
I’ve heard the sub-5′-box crew cabs being referred to as “four-door sedans with wet groceries”.
There are no sub-5′ boxes on any new pickups. There was a 4’7″ bed on the crew cab S-10.
How about the Explorer Sport Trac? I know that’s more of an “SUV with bed” but I remember thinking the bed was ludicrously short.
The crew cab Frontier of about 10 years ago also seemed to have a pointlessly short bed.
Oh yeah, forgot about that. That was just over 4′. I do count it as an SUV with a bed, since both the first and second gens were quite obviously Explorers from the front doors forward. Although, the first-gen was on the same 126″ WB as a Ranger…
First-gen Frontier short bed was also about 4’7″. I don’t think we ever had any of those in my neck of the woods, though. Everyone waited a few years until they introduced the crew cab with a 6′ bed.
So this is not a “true” pickup…
…and this is? 😉
Excellent point.
Now that is a real truck for certain, one I’d love to add to my collection though I’d prefer a 72.
Jeep has never been able to market a pickup successfully. The product was always at least as good as the competition and in 4×4 form (which was sometimes the only way they were made) they were untouchable. But they always pushed them heavily out of the gate then let the focus on them slip away. When these were in production, many were simply unaware of them. Ditto the Scrambler. At the time, the minitruck craze was in full swing and many were reg cab shortbeds….but mostly 2wd which Jeep isnt known for. These had success with the Archer Bros. in racing but these just didnt lend themselves well to lowering kits and neon doodads which was what you did in the 80’s / 90’s. I wanted one in the worst way. Any shortie 4x4s with the 4.0/5spd were overpriced and got snapped up QUICK.
I’ve driven two pickup trucks which were single cab body style. And although I often wondered why no one had offered at the time a crew cab compact pickup truck, it served my purpose just fine.
I was a carpenter for 25 years, had a 1972 Ford F100, a 1982 Ford F100 and a 1997 Ford F150…..but I love this Jeep truck……sorry I never bought one.
Looks to be in good shape for its age. Interior looks good, no heavy rust, not sure about the bed. Great to have as a farm truck, or something to give your son(s) as a first set of wheels (provided you live in the country). Very basic design, so repairs should not be too challenging.
Wrap it up, I’ll take it!!??
My 93 Ranger xlt shortbed has the attributes mentioned but with a load on the freeway,trying to up the hills,the 4 banger makes me feel like the driver of a VW bus.
The Comanche dominated in SCORE and SCCA stock classes for a couple of years with the 4.0 engine over the competitions 2.8 v6s. Unfortunately winning races on Sunday was not selling trucks on Monday. When Chrysler bought AMC in 88 I would think they did not want it to compete with their recent pay dirt hit Dakota. (87 debute) sold 104865 units US sales. The Dakota offered the “Club Cab” option in 1990 only in v6 . They did not use the excellent Jeep 2.5 4 cyl. in the Dakota until 1996 after the Chysler 2.5 was dropped from production. In my opinion they should have used the Jeep 2.5 in base Dakotas from 88 on. It was dead reliable as the 4.0 six and had more low end power than the Dodge Shadow engine. The Dakota with the 2.5 Chrysler was gutless and it looked so rigged in there, because it was…, rigged in there.
This is interesting, the standard Cherokee is near the 100″ wheelbase sweet spot as a compromise that favors off-roading clearance rather than interior space or highway comfort.
I wonder if they would have been better off with a shorter bed version on the 100″ similar to the CJ8 Scrambler, and then a 6″ longer cab with a 6′ bed on the 113″ WB as the high-capacity model, and leave anything more practical to Dodge.
I remember seeing more extra cab Japanese pickups around as the 1980s and 90s progressed, starting with the Datsun 720 King Cab from memory, but I can’t recall which ones had rear seats here in Australia, or when they were introduced. I don’t know whether there were regulations preventing side-facing seats or just the manufacturers that didn’t offer them, but it wasn’t until the 2000s that they all had seats, at least in the base trim versions.
Today’s 4 door pick up reminds me of John Wayne on a horse with 2 saddles. A four door Mustang or Corvette would be much more practicle but it just ain’t right.
It’s much more useful for most buyers, though, to have available passenger and cargo space than just a lot of cargo space.
Yep. These days Dad needs to haul the kids around too while Mom is at work. Both parents need flexible vehicles.
While undoubtedly not having a extended cab helped to put the Comanche into the “also ran” category, The big reason the Comanche did not sell well was that most truck buyers were unaware that Jeep made a midsize pickup truck (Just like most did not know Jeep made a fullsize truck for decades ether)
After all even though Toyota offered a extended cab (called XtraCab) starting in 1984 the regular cab outsold the extended cab version in the USA from 84 to 88(it was not until the 89-94 generation that sales shifted from reg cab to extended cab)
Seating wise, sitting in the back seat of extended cab pickup trucks is quite miserable to do. I was over at the place I have bought a few vehicles from and they had a 2000 Chevy Silverado extended cab pickup truck and I tried to sit in the back seat(it was a full bench) and it was uncomfortable as $%^#, I cannot imagine what sitting in the back seat of a Ranger or S-10 would be like.
Nice-looking trucks, but the lack of an extended cab plus the in-house competition from the Dakota were too much to take. Mostly gone from the streets now, though there was a relatively nice one that parked on the street in my old neighborhood (still there last time I went by, a few weeks ago.)
It’s hard to call this a “failure” in the marketplace…. and the way it was explained to me at the time when I worked at Jeep Truck Engineering was that the Toledo plant was at capacity, and each spot taken up by a Comanche on the line was one less spot for the much more profitable Cherokee, same thing happened for the 2 door XJ’s as well. Jeep was selling every 4 door Cherokee they could build at the time. AMC had always been very cash strapped, so there wasn’t likely enough sales to justify the added expense of additional cab variants and updates etc…I heard the plant had even built a one off diesel version of this with parts from other XJ’s in the facility since diesel XJ’s were built for export as a demonstration back to corporate.
The lack of an extended cab was undoubtedly a fatal flaw – and one I had never considered.
Still, the Cherokee was a fairly unique offering hitting the sweet spot of a market migrating away from sedans and wagons – it really is not an indicator of how the Commanche should have sold. Commanche was up against product juggernauts in the form of the Ranger and S-10. And, truck buyers tend to be very brand loyal.
I have a 1989 Comanche Pioneer long bed that I bought off of the dealer floor new with a 5 speed transmission, 4 wheel drive, and 12 miles on the clock. I wish that I had ordered air conditioning when I bought it. It now has 336,000, and just replaced the clutch for the first time. Not because the clutch was bad, but the slave cylinder went bad & you have to pull the transmission to replace it, so I did everything else while I was in there.
The weak parts of the design are: the early exhaust manifolds cracked, the paint fell off early, and the springs are too light for a truck. The Metric Ton model had a Dana 44 axle & stronger springs.
The 4.0 Jeep / AMC / Rambler six is, in my opinion, one of the great engines of the world. Keep oil in it & it just keeps running, while putting out diesel like torque. I wish that Jeep would make another truck with an in line six, I’d buy it.
It is kind funny how things work. Back in late ’64 when the 232 was first introduced it was kind of looked down upon because it was built by Rambler\AMC. By the time it met it’s swan song it was looked upon in reverence like the Slant Six.
Gave these a glance back in 1986 while shopping for a new small pickup. Looked like they were assembled in a corn field at night by drunkards. Looked, felt cheap. Ended up with a 1986 1/2 Nissan “Hardbody” Kingcab, SE V6, 5 speed and air. Amazing little jewel of a truck. Jump seats folded up into the sides and the interior was very Z like. Seamless double wall bed didn’t rust like a Toyota and it ran, drove very carlike. It’s living in South America now…