Rental Review: 2017 Dodge Durango Limited (whatever that means)

[MinisterofDOOM]

I ended up in a brand new, 3100 miles-on-the-odo Durango this week, and...I think it's pretty okay. It's much different from what I expected, but it didn't make me angry most of the time.

I like the Durango's looks in general. It's clean and curvy without being overdone, and still maintains a hint of classic SUV proportions even though it's thoroughly a midsize three-row crossover. This one has nice metallic grey paint and the details are quite nice. It rides on 18 inch wheels with 60-ratio tires, and I think they look a ton better than low-pros on 20s or 21s on this car.

It has a pentastar six which makes adequate power routed through a pretty tolerable 8-speed transmission to all four wheels. When I first got in the car, I looked around for the AWD/4WD control knob. There wasn't one, so I wondered if the car was RWD-only (the Durango uses a longitudinal powertrain layout). I popped the hood to check out the details, and there were a pair of CV shafts extending out from below the oilpan.
This makes the Durango a really odd duck.
It's unibody with fully independent suspension.
But it comes with a Hemi V8 or a pentastar six (same as in the half-ton pickups) mated to a ZF 8 speed (again, same as Ram half-ton pickups).
And it has an AWD system with no user control (at least on baser models). No full RWD lockout, no diff lock controls, no snow mode, no off-road mode, nothing. Absolutely ZERO AWD controls of any kind. I really, REALLY dislike that in a huge way. It could make sense on a goofy, gimmicky Acura- or Ford-style front-biased setup, but with a proper longitudinal layout, I'd like to be able to have a say in where my power goes (by which I mean: all the way back unless I instruct otherwise, which is basically only when it's snowing).

That pentastar six is not lacking in torque, and is pretty refined, but it sounds, to quote Mr1der, like marbles in a blender. A lot like a mid-generation VQ. It's just not a pleasant noise. It's not really invasive or UNpleasant, but it's not nice, either.
It has an auto start/stop system that's nowhere near as seamless as those in the GM sedans I've driven lately. It's very slow and I almost get the impression it uses an old-fashioned planetary Chrysler starter rather than a modern motor-generator as in most start/stop systems. I doubt that's really the case, but the point is I noticed. It's LOUD, and shudders heavily. It initiates as soon as you start reducing pressure on the brake pedal but, even if you're taking your time, the engine still isn't running by the time your foot finds the gas. Fortunately (and twenty-six million bonus points for this one) Dodge has included a dedicated button to disable the auto start/stop function right on the dash. No menus, no computers. Just a button. Sadly, it doesn't retain settings on fresh starts.

The Durango feels like it's trying to be a half-step between a real SUV and a crossover. But it's really a crossover and retains none of the benefits of a truck. No beefy transfer case. No ladder frame. No solid axle at either end. No robust towing or payload capacity. It's capable of the same stuff as a Pilot, but on a more traditional architecture.
I certainly prefer that more traditional architecture, as I think transverse crossovers are silly compromises, but I still find it odd that Dodge didn't do much to capitalize on the differences of the car. Granted, in other trims, there are sportier editions a-la European crossovers (which use similar correctly-oriented engine layouts). But in the base models, you don't really get any of the benefits of what's clearly a pretty decent design under the car.

The interior was basically EXACTLY what I expect of modern Dodge: It doesn't look or feel overtly cheap, but it certainly isn't remotely premium. It uses lots of soft-touch black surfaces with nice, clean, simple lines and it well laid-out. I kind of like it, because it's both unobtrusive and un-cheap. The only exception being that some of the bits of fine chrome brightwork tended to catch the sunlight at bad angles in the evening and try to blind me.
With the third row folded down, there's a fair bit of space in the back. With the third row up, there's enough room for a few grocery bags or a suitcase, but no more than that.
The rotary shifter was much much much better executed in this car than the trashy 200s I've driven. It's not fake-metal-painted plastic, but rather rubberized grip with a tiny bit of chrome trim at the base. It felt more hefty and solid. However, it took up just as much console space as a normal shift lever, so I don't quite see the benefit. Make it compact and get it more out of the way and it makes sense. As it is, it's a gimmick. And one that might fail--at least more likely than a mechanical shift lever.

The seats were...really good. Broad adjustability range in all areas (the best lumbar adjust I've ever experienced--even if that mainly means it turned "off" enough for me to be happy). The headrests were FANTASTIC. Best headrests I've ever encountered. I NEVER EVER like headrests. I love these ones. They are height and rake adjustable, and the rake adjusts forward protrusion as well. They're fairly aggressively convex on the horizontal, and they just sort of cradle your head nicely. I was able to get the seat and headrest configured so that I was genuinely and completely comfortable. I think the last car I've ever been able to pull that off in was my Q45 (a very tall-people friendly car with spectacular headrests and a nice big lower seat cushion for long legs). I didn't expect a Dodge to have great seats--much less a crossover. If I could transplant Durango headrests into my LS8, I absolutely would.

The Durango's infotainment system is a mess. All touchscreen for everything but climate. Including crap that should absolutely positively have dedicated buttons, like the effing REAR VIEW MIRROR DIMMING. Seat heaters, steering wheel heater, mirror dimmer, media controls, vehicle settings, EVERYTHING done through a tedious, lazy, and genuinely not-organized (not merely disorganized) "app drawer" that's trying to act like a smartphone. Apparently someone forgot to tell Dodge that the one thing NO smartphone OS has ever done right is the app organization. And Dodge decided to copy them all. Stuff moves around inexplicably, so you end up scrolling between pages (yes PAGES of "apps" for basic control inputs) to find what you need. Some stuff is redundantly-housed or accessible by quick buttons at the bottom of the screen that group common functions (climate, media, nav, etc.) but it's all highly clunky. They did at least make fairly efficient use of the square touchscreen, including multiple sets of data at once--outdoor temp, clock, climate settings, media info, and other stuff alongside whatever your "main" view is at any time). But I HATED having to switch views to get access to something simple like my seat heater. Reducing physical button clutter is great, but some things just work best as dedicated controls.

Likewise, the LCD instrument cluster is really badly designed. This one does NOT make efficient use of space, and only shows a single type of data at once, in addition to a digital or analog speedo. The analog speedo's demarcations are 5mph like everything else modern, so it's basically like using a wooden school ruler to measure semiconductor lithography.
Also, as with a lot of cars these days, some of the "pages" you can view on the IP are utterly useless. There's one dedicated to telling you if the auto start/stop system is "ready"--but it doesn't define what exactly determines that state of readiness. Anyway, if it's AUTOMATIC, why should I need to know if it's ready? It's not like I'm waiting to initiate it myself. So bizarre.
When viewing digital speedo mode with other info alongside, the digital speedo shrinks and jumps to the top of the IP--exactly where it's least visible behind the wheel. Most everyone else moves it to the bottom, but Dodge does it backward and the result is terrible.
One thing I DID like about the IP was that, even in full-auto mode, the gear indicator shows the currently selected gear next to the "D" indicator. I've always wished my LS8 would do this. Especially with the Dodge's 8-speed, it's interesting to see what the car's doing. Watching it, I learned that the trans is actually quite conservative, and often stays a gear or two lower than I'd expect around town. This is nice, because it means you're not constantly waiting for a gear with power when you need it.

I was surprised at how much I liked the Durango. I don't do crossovers, but if I did, I'd consider this one. But I'd have to get a sportier model and probably RWD only unless there's an option that allows for greater control of the AWD system.

Maybe...7.5/10? I can see an R/T or Citadel model possibly being an 8.

[AZhitman]

Quick note on this vehicle before I get back to "work:"

There's a Citadel model in our neighborhood. I absolutely LOVE the styling when viewed from side profile.

However, seeing that thing going away RUINS it. How the hell did they get it so gorgeous from the side, and so narrow-a$$ awful from the rear?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

A co-worker had one as a rental when he came down from Detroit. I wasn't really impressed. The headrests in the back seem to pop down for better visibility I'm guessing, but you don't really expect it when you get in.
Also, the AC was god-awful. Took forever just to cool down.
I popped the hood and found a lot of not-well secured wiring and hardware. Go figure.

[MinisterofDOOM]

A bit of research confirms: the start/stop system merely uses a beefed up battery and starter and NOT a motor-generator/alternator combo as in properly-executed designs.
The drawbacks here are significant. Consider how even a marginally weak charging system can leave you stranded after frequent starts, and that's WITHOUT all accessories being left on during engine-off times. I can see this system "wearing" badly with age, especially as the battery cells age.
Another, less critical but very noticeable drawback is that Chrysler's starters are a bit different design than most other brands. Chrysler tends to use planetary gearsets in their starters. It creates a distinctive sound, and it's considerably louder and more noticeable than a traditional non-planetary starter like you find in GM, Ford, and most other brands.
Lastly, traditional motor-generator/alternator combos like you find in Prius, Volt, Malibu, etc. are EXTREMELY robust and considerably more efficient than traditional starters, in addition to producing a lot more torque. This makes them a lot better suited to frequent engine startup use. The downsides are that they drive the engine through the accessory belt rather than the flywheel, and they're damned expensive since they're much more complex than even a starter and alternator combined.

Anyway, I noticed immediately driving the Durango, which is the real point. Chrysler: if you're going to do it, do it right. Don't half@ss it. I can't imagine it being significantly more costly to design a new motor-generator/alternator based charging system than to beef up the starter and battery--especially if it's a design that you're applying to a multibrand global engine arrangement.

A co-worker had one as a rental when he came down from Detroit. I wasn't really impressed. The headrests in the back seem to pop down for better visibility I'm guessing, but you don't really expect it when you get in.
Also, the AC was god-awful. Took forever just to cool down.
I popped the hood and found a lot of not-well secured wiring and hardware. Go figure.

The AC was definitely weak, but I don't exactly use AC a lot. Especially in springtime Idaho above 4800 feet. Of course, I'm used to having cooled seats to negate the need for AC in all but the hottest conditions, and the Durango didn't have those.

The third-row headrests have an electronic release buried in the moronic "app" drawer. With those headrests folded, rear visibility is excellent. Second-row headrests are set wide enough relative to the mirror and backlight that they almost don't intrude at all. I spent most of my drive with the third row folded and I could see just fine.

[Jesda]

The Durango is a muscular looking family car. However, the Grand Cherokee steals the show with its upscale looks, the brand, and the nicer interior.

The app layout makes the system familiar to the smartphone crowd. I personally prefer knobs and buttons with the display simply doing the displaying. I dont mind a touch screen but I prefer not to rely on it.

These Durangos are very appealing as used cars.

[Mr1der]

I'm pretty sure the infotainment system in most new cars will be the reason I don't ever bother owning one unless it's just too rad on the road.

The new Focus RS...it's apparently balls a** amazing.

And I have no idea when I said marbles in a blender...

[MinisterofDOOM]

My memory says it was somewhere when you were referring to the VQ's NVH characteristics and it just stuck with me because it's entirely apt. It really applies to most modern DOHC V6s, but it's particularly relevant to the Pentastar.

Of course, I could be misremembering, but you get credit either way.

Infotainment systems are going to put a serious dent in the used car market. Today, a 20-year-old luxury car is a bargain, with a bit of resto funding to get things back in top condition. 20 years from now, even the most basic cheapmobile is going to be at risk of the centrally-integrated computer systems taking a dump and costing twice the car's value to replace. EVERYTHING on the Durango goes through the touchscreen. What happens when that fails and nobody has parts in 20-25 years? NONE of the car will be usable anymore. I'm a geek. I know how this stuff works. LCDs and touchscreens and flash memory and firmware, all just waiting to take a steaming dump all over the used-market practicality of these cars. "Initial quality" studies are hilarious. How about "standard lifetime use" quality?

I don't buy new cars. The depreciation is simply too high in the first 3-5 years for new car purchases to be even faintly sensible. But the used car market is being ruined by complexity and unnecessary cost of ownership. Unless something changes, I'll STILL be driving '90s and early 2000s cars 30 years from now, just to avoid the stupidity that is technology creep. Or maybe a Corvair. I'd love to be rich enough to afford a Yenko Stinger and defy progress by smiling my a** off behind that wheel every day.

[Jesda]

Don't be surprised to see more aftermarket solutions for aging infotainment systems.

That said, this equipment does last the life of the car. The powertrain will croak long before most solid state electronics.

[MinisterofDOOM]

That's not most people's experience with modems, cellphones, tablets, TVs, etc. They fail all the time; low QC standards and the nature of component complexity means it has become a fact of life.

And auto manufacturers suck at electronics. Most of them can't even design power locks that last the life of a car, never mind complex hardware/software networks.

[Jesda]

Infotainment systems can fail but as mostly non-mechanical items they've become pretty durable. Many, however, suffer from poor owner satisfaction due to clunky UIs and software that's poorly optimized for the lower-end hardware they're often mated to, but that has nothing to do with actual failure. You're more likely to run into software glitches requiring updates rather than burst capacitors or bad solder joints. In the beginning there were issues with optical drives and CCFL/backlight/inverter issues, some of which I've experienced myself.
The auto industry got a long head start on fuel and engine computerization so they've become pretty good at building components that stand up to extreme temperatures, humidity levels, and vibrations.

And they've only gotten better over time, especially UConnect which is currently an industry gold standard for usability and performance.

Generally speaking, I've had really good service from other electronic accessories including power locks, windows, security systems, sunroofs, and premium sound systems. Sometimes the teeth on plastic gears in cars from the 80s and 90s can break and fail due to age but generally these things have been standardized across the board.

This is a Wired article from 2013 which is noteworthy because it's right after infotainment became commonplace in inexpensive cars. They also mention a job at GM that I applied and got callbacks for at about the same time. Manufacturers are noticing a gap between customer expectations and how modern tech works, addressing the problem by making sure dealers and end users are more in sync with what designers and engineers bring to market.

http://www.wired.com/2013/04/car-tech-failing/

I think Tesla has done for in-car tech what Apple has done for smartphones -- introducing commonplace reliability, usability, performance, and elevated expectations.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I think Tesla has done for in-car tech what Apple has done for smartphones -- introducing commonplace reliability, usability, performance, and elevated expectations.

This analogy is perfect. In fact, I think Tesla vs everyone else feels a lot like iOS 1.0 did relative to Android 1.5/1.6. It's clean, responsive, polished, and dependable.

[Antihero]

I am not a fan of the Durango by any means, but my friend's father in law has the citadel edition, and it is FANTASTIC. Comfy yet firm, and the infotainment stuff is great.

oh, and heated steering wheel.

[Jesda]

Here's an interesting story that backs your point about automakers being weak on infotainment development:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/after-fail ... t-systems/

[MinisterofDOOM]

Software updates for 100% consistent, identical systems that break things are utterly unacceptable. How do you screw that up? That Lexus issue is pure lack of QC and lack of care. Test it!!!!! That's all it takes. It's not a PC. There aren't 5,000,000,000 hardware permutations to test against. YOU ENGINEERED THE HARDWARE. Just mindblowing. Somebody needs to be fired, because they obviously didn't do their one job: not release s*** software.

If I owned one of those cars, I'd be mad as hell. Not about the inconvenience, but by the attitude that error shows in the manufacturer, and the uncertainty it creates with regard to my car's future. Is it still going to work in a year? Is Lexus going to break something and never fix it? How long do I still get firmware updates?

This is something the rest of the software industry figured out decades ago. It's embarrassing.

[Buzzman]

What happens when that fails and nobody has parts in 20-25 years? NONE of the car will be usable anymore.

I was thinking about this very thing.
Even now, a 10-12 year old car with a rudimentary infotainment system is obsolete and irreparable.
My brother in law has a ten year old Acura with factory sat nav. Doesn't work and can't be fixed.

Here's a scenario running through my imagination: someone buys a 2016 BMW M5, as an example.
He drives it for a few years and then parks in in his garage, for the next 45 years.
In 2066, someone finds it and decides it's a perfect barn find, and wants to restore it.
Low miles, no rust, engine not seized. Perfect.
Only one problem: the electronics are fried. Nothing works.
Now what?
Not a chance in hell that anyone in 2066 is going to have the electronic/computer parts for this car.

Don't see that problem with a 1966 GTO, now do you?

[Jesda]

I was thinking about this very thing.
Even now, a 10-12 year old car with a rudimentary infotainment system is obsolete and irreparable.
My brother in law has a ten year old Acura with factory sat nav. Doesn't work and can't be fixed.

Now what?
Not a chance in hell that anyone in 2066 is going to have the electronic/computer parts for this car.

Don't see that problem with a 1966 GTO, now do you?

For a high end, valuable car? I guarantee there will be an aftermarket for electronic components.

But for, say, a Suzuki Verona, probably not.