2014 Jeep Cherokee Review - Building Bridges

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch) 11/27/2013 at 09:24 • Filed to: Jeep, Cherokee, Review

11

64

In all vehicle reviews there is a paragraph at the beginning with an analogy to something other than cars to frame the rest of the review. Something like; if the 2014 Cherokee were named after another native American tribe the cake song might be apt - come Comanche come on, if you want to build bridges you have to build roads. This new Cherokee is Jeep's renewed attempt to build important bridges into the lucrative small suv market, dominated by the rav4, crv and escape where the liberty has been a relative failure. But is this new jeep just treading on sacred ground, or is there a new chief? I've found, however that these paragraphs usually don't contain any good information or writing and so i usually skip them and move on to the next paragraph where the meat starts.

[full disclosure - Hearst publishing, in conjunction with Ray Wert and co flew me and 9 others like me out to Jackson Hole, WY at the behest of Jeep to do a comparison test of the aforementioned SUV's. I was fed well, and it was cold]

Let's get this out of the way right now, this is not an XJ. I owned a 91 limited with the 4.0 HO and the 5 speed manual and it's still dear to my heart. The new Cherokee, or KL, doesn't have a single solid axle, or 60s era inline 6 or even manual transmission, however, given that all people want to talk about are the new nose job (yeah, it's not great) and the weight of the name I'll oblige and tailor this review to reflect that with categories scored in Cherokee's...XJ Cherokee's. 1-5. 5 being most bestest. Also, as both a rabid car nerd and a purveyor of fine automotive literature, I understand that most people don't enjoy the same level of detail as I do so for convenience; super nerdy technical deep dive stuff will numbered and featured as footnotes after the bulk of the review.

Exterior -

Photo credit: Jesse Fretag

If there is one thing a design shouldn't be, its boring. I like to call it "polarizing" you either have grown to like it, or it still makes you swallow your barf. Truth is, they could have made it a 5/8th grand Cherokee and they didn't do it and I think its better for it. Love it or hate it, you'll know one when you see it. I think its perfect...aside from anything forward of the front wheels. Honestly, from the back, sides, ¾ view...its really stunning, but the long nose coupled with an...um...distinctive frontal treatment leave me saddened. It could have been a little more Grand Cherokee and been better for it. as for hitting their "love it or leave it" design target...they nailed it, and given that I typically don't care what a utility vehicle looks like as long as it brings the game...I think its mostly a win. BTW, all their paints are metal flake and look quite good, especially red and black. 4 XJ's

Interior -

photo credit: car and driver

If Jeep is indeed going to build roads (see what I mean about that first paragraph?) its going to need to start here. To say that Chrysler interiors have been cheap is to be kind, fortunately, things are starting to change with the Italian Stallion at the helm and this is one Chrysler purchase you don't first qualify with, yeah the interior isn't great but… Everywhere my eye went my hand followed to find that yes, its really that soft dash material of VW fame, or yes, those are real buttons...yes to this and that…the interior is full of yes. Having said that, I also spend some time in the back seats where headroom is severely limited with the super sunroof, there is no map pocket on the back of the passenger seat and there were clear signs that the money started up front and tapered towards the back. Also, cargo space is sparer than the others in this class. This is an interior for the driver and 3 friends' tops...and pack light. ( 1 cool buttons ) Other oddities included a menu driven seat heater control vs hard buttons. HVAC...thankfully...is controlled by a separate system. 4 XJ's mostly because I love this interior.

Ride/handling - Impressive. No seriously, if you've ridden in an XJ, this will make you swear you're in an LS400. You're not though; you're in a cute ute in the year 2013 where all the competitors are 100 miles ahead of the XJ. On hand for comparison was a Rav4, Escape and CR-V; The escape handled nicely but was too sharp, the Rav4 and CR-V wallowed as expected, same goes for the Forester XT I tester earlier in the year. The jeep is the proverbial Goldilocks; not to hard, not too soft. It was a ride that made you remember you were in something substantial, with distant heavy wumphs instead of thwaks or pings. In the handling department I am only marginally qualified to comment as the warmest is got in Jackson Hole was 20 and while I was at the wheel, Ray was making sure he didn't have to explain to the Jeep people why their shiny new jeep was ¾ embedded into a confused bison. I will say that throwing it at corners on an icy road at 20 degrees at extra legal speed with the traction control off was totally confidence inspiring...at least it was for me. Having owned the very sporty 2005 forester XT 5 speed, and driven the very sharp and tenacious escape ecoboost titanium as references, I was pleasantly surprised how well it took to corners given how much better a ride than the escape it was and how much more solid the suspension felt. on and off road, this rates a 4 and 1/2 XJ rating.

the rear control arms are a special process of cold work extruded aluminum

Go/Stop -

Photo credit: trucktrend

I'm going to qualify my impressions by the fact that at 6800 feet the engine is down on power ~20% due to the loss of air density at altitude, which means that means 55 of the 271 angry Detroit horses that started off in the 3.2 liter Pentastar were now roaming the pastures giving the local horses a hard time about the UAW. ( 2 details on the 3.2 ) Even with these qualifiers, it was pretty sprightly...when revved. I didn't get any instrumented data, but it's a much faster ride at this elevation than anything in class that's not turbo-charged. The only other vehicle close was the ecoboost and the power delivery in that engine was so much worse that I would take the v6 every time. A forester XT would walk over this thing at high elevation, but that's about it. ( 3 what about power to weight or torque? ) The 9 speed helps keep the engine in the sweet spot longer though it felt really tall geared for something with 4 overdrives in addition to a standard 5 speed. Speaking of that transmission, no, I didn't get into 9th, or maybe I did...I wasn't paying attention. The thing I can say most about this transmission is that it's pretty transparent. It's just as good as any very well programed modern planetary transmission; smooth, quick, accurate. The manumatic "sport" function is of the VW autostick design, but is reverse polish in nature (towards you is upshift and away is downshift)...I.e. wrong. It works reasonably well, and it will hold gears and bounce off the redline all day long if you want. It does not rev match on downshifts. I wish I had more info to elaborate on this amazing transmission because a brief summary hardly does the technology justice, but the engineers should feel proud of the calibrations that are, I'm told, complete and ready to rock. ( 4 yeah, what about those calibrations? ) Are you sad you can't get a manual? Me too, but that's the reality of the world we live in. On the plus side, it means amazing in class mileage and its decent fun for its type. Brakes? They work. A little wooden on initial bite, but otherwise strong and dependable; what is there to complain about? A hellavalot better than any brakes the XJ ever came with. In terms of go, and stop, it's a very competent package and the 3.2 works very well here…though it does beg the question why the 3.6 could slot it, being the same size as the 3.2 externally; My guess is a toque limit on the transmission. I would say 3.5 XJ's for the engine and 4 1/2 for the trans, lets call it 4.

photo credit: motor trend

Toys - The Limited and the Trailhawk have got em, but they should, they match or exceed the priciest vehicles in the segment at this level; Having said that, no one else has an adaptive cruise that will fully panic stop and start in this group. It works well, check out the videos that should be up in about a month to see. It also has fancy automated parking that will do parallel and perpendicular. But It's my opinion that if you can't park your own car...maybe driving isn't for you. Also, I have to wonder who is using these systems. I see two possible scenarios:

1. You are a nerdy button pusher like me and you want to show your friends your cool party piece.

2. You think this will stop your significant other from backing into cars and running up your insurance premium.

In either case, it's not going to work: 1. because if you are a nerdy button pusher you don't have friends to impress and 2. Because your significant other is going to totally forget or never bother to learn how the system works and it will go unused. It also has lane departure which works by letting you know when your mom is driving. The stereo is okay, but the Ford's and Toyota's systems are better. At least the UI in the infotainment is easy to use and straightforward. In 30 seconds I had it mastered, a true feat in and of itself these days. ( 5 what about off road toys ?) 4 for Toys

Capability -

Let's get the bad over with:

Articulation – Not a solid axle in sight and the ramp score shows it which...according to an engineer...is in the low to mid 300's on a 20 degree ramp. ( 6 what's a ramp score ) Ramp scores aren't everything...ask a hummer H1...but more is generally better.

photo credit: fourwheeler.com

Aftermarket - I asked the Jeep engineer what considerations were given to the aftermarket, or if it was possible to lift it? Not really. There isn't much in it, though it seems like the CV angles are low enough for it. She said a lift is possible, but it would mean…essentially…a body lift where you would drop the sub-frames away from the body to get another inch for bigger tires. Short answer: don't bother.

The Cherokee is available in 4 flavors of drive:

Fwd – for people who think stick on portholes are awesome.

Active Drive I which is single speed AWD pretty much just like the rest of the segment. Power is routed to the rear in times of need through clutches in the Power Takeoff Unit (PTU) – pretty much all anyone needs for bad weather capability

Active Drive II which gives you low range, terrain select and Hill Decent Control (HDC) – more or less what you get with the Trailhawk.

Active Drive lock which is active drive II with a true rear differential locker, crawl control and "rock" is added to the terrain control knob's normal "auto, snow, sport, sand/mud" settings.

Now the great - Why build bridges when you can just cross the river?

photo credit: Jesse Fretag

First off, this is way better off road than it has a right to be and secondly, for rock crawling you are better off buying used, since it's going to be about body damage at a certain point and you'll have more fun not feeling like your tipping over all the time (articulation). Durability may also be an issue given the nature of the platform and construction, but on that front ask an XJ owner how their doors close after a few years of off-roading. The traction management system worked well without obvious intrusion and traction was never an issue in the snow and ice, even up stupidly steep icy road.

photo credit: Jesse Fretag

We took a limited with the active drive II system and the Trailhawk with active drive lock through the same stuff and both were masters, including a few frozen river crossing a little above the 20 inch max with not problems at all.

photo credit: Jesse Fretag

You get a true low range with an astounding 48:1 crawl ratio (56:1 with the 2.4L) which means plenty of control and power to boot. ( 7 More on that crazy crawl ratio )

The PTU clutches are locked in 4lo but even in 4hi the system can fully lock as well if needed. For the record, I couldn't tell the difference between auto, snow, sport, sand/mud". The Rock mode in the Trailhawk is unique because it's the only setting where you can activate the rear locker; which is a genuine mechanical locker.The other important numbers on the Trailhawk are pretty impressive.

29.8 approach, 23.3 break over, 32.1 departure, 20 inches of water fording.Better than most in its class and good enough for all but serious rock crawling, ground clearance is 8.7 in the Trailhawk, up from 7.7 in the limited. ( 8 caveats on numbers ) Oh yes, I nearly forgot, the off road ride is sublime, not Range Rover smooth, but LEAGUES ahead of anything else in its price point. Off road it gets a legit 3 and 1/2 XJ's, which...considering the scoring matrix, its pretty great.

Value - It costs a lot, but you do get a lot. 4 XJ's

So the big question; What is it?

The tough part about these suv's is trying to figure out their place in the off-road world: They are way more hardcore and capable that any of their competition, but not strong enough for truly demanding adventure travel like crawling and mudding. The thing I kept asking myself was; "how far am I willing to push it, knowing that it is, after all, just a dart underneath."My limits, in the end, were lower than the vehicle only because I knew that when I did reach those limits, it was going to get ugly. Now let me say that being conservative meant taking me to some pretty remote and wonderful places with genuine challenges that would have stopped lesser vehicles along the way.In terms of how much terrain you could tackle, I would say 95% XJ, which is pretty damn good considering how much better a car on the road the KL is.

I grew up Jeeping in real SUV's (Cherokee, rodeo, etc) in Moab and the surrounding areas and I loved it but I knew I would eventually need a car meant for the road where I spent most of my time, I would trade capability for economy and ruggedness for cornering and ended up in a Subaru like most people did.What these jeeps represent, to me, is a ticket back into the game; Where you can have all the capability you might reasonably need, but if won't cost you an arm and a leg to drive there, and it doesn't mean giving up a fun drive on the roads.The truth is, there is no Wrangler MX5 and there never will be, but if you still believe in the idea that you can have it all, without robbing a bank, The Cherokee might be worth looking into.I recommend the Trailhawk because it looks better, you get the skid plates and that inch of height, but the limited with active drive II did everything the Trailhawk did without complaint and would serve you well.If you just need the most bang for the buck and your idea of off-road is a gravel path to a cabin, then a forester XT is your car. If you think that real adventure is in your future, but you aren't crazy enough to give everything else to drive a true off-roader for those 1 or 2 times a year…Look no further. No its not an XJ, and frankly better for it. All in all, it gets a rating of 4 XJ's

This is the last line in the review where I tie in the first paragraph with something lame like: Well Comanche, you may have a lot to learn about building bridges and roads, but This Cherokee sure doesn't.Quality stuff right?

Pros –

As capable as you are willing to risk body damage

Comfortable

Good road manners

Good fuel economy

Cons –

Not easily upgradable

Not as spacious as others in its class

No manual

Still a rancor face

Not an XJ (seriously, can we just get over this?)

NERD CORNER

1. The most impressive thing was the buttons that turned of the traction control (true off) was front and center, as were the buttons to disable the lane departure systems and park assist. Buttons that didn't even exist in the others. Sadly, a tiny two way button replaces the handbrake.

2. The 3.2 liter pentastar is, more or less, a de-bored (91x83 vs 96x83) version of the 3.6 Pentastar V6 found in other jeep products. Like the 3.6 the 3.2 is smooth and modern and as a bonus, revs to nearly 7000. The downside is that it needs to, with only 239 ft-lbs at 4400 rpm and peak hp at 6500 rpm a low end stump puller this aint.

3. Progress sees 15.5 lbs/hp in the KL to the old…but still damn impressive…17.9 lbs/hp for the XJ. Interestingly, torque is a different story, with the KL showing 17.6 lbs/ft-lb of torque to the superior 15 lbs/ft-lb of torque for the XJ (239 vs 225). Good news is, the gap is largely taken care of with a great transmission.

4. I'm told that the reason this transmission held up deliveries of Cherokees was due to...as usual...VERY aggressive delivery dates. In other words, they did the best they could do, but a little more time in the oven was necessary; Props to Jeep for allowing the engineers to finish the job properly, even if it took them a little longer to realize it.

5. The trailhawk also gets a true locking rear differential, a feature called select speed and hill descent control that all work as advertised. Select speed works like a low speed cruise control, modulating throttle and brake to keep a consistent speed off road. Check of the video of the trailhawk in action. Notice the brake lights? No brakes were applied in the shot. It's a neat and novel technology …Toyota calls it crawl control and it's been on the land cruiser for about a decade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d8eyf…

6. A ramp score represents axle articulation and is measured by driving up a 20 degree ramp with one wheel until one rear wheel comes off the ground. A liberty did mid 400's, and a Rubicon does well over 600 .

7. The transfer case in the ptu reduces gear ratio and then a planetary reducer before each differential reduces the ratio even further resulting in a mind blowing 56:1 crawl ratio. That means that at 4400 rpm (about 4 mph in 1st) you can put down over 13,000 lb-ft of torque to the wheels. That's a lot. It also means the Active Drive II system has 3 gear reducing "transfer cases"

8. These are for the Trailhawk with its different fascia's and higher clearance, expect 1 inch less for other models in fording and worse approach and departure. The limit on fording is mainly the breather tubes for the transmission and gear reducers though the intake and body breather holes are not far behind.

HammerheadFistpunch > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 12:30

7

Wow, the formatting got dumped on, and I can't edit it. Good times and thanks Kinja!

PelicanHazard > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 12:39

1

Still read it all. Great review.

Milky > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 12:44

0

I don't normally read long long posts because lol words, but I will definitely come back and read this when I get a chance later. Excited to read what this thing is actually like.

Also InB4 the dozens of OMGNotACherokee comments, thanks for including - "Not an XJ (seriously, can we just get over this?)"

HammerheadFistpunch > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 12:49

1

Omitted detail - no full size spare, even on the Trailhawk.

KB Garage > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 12:59

5

Great review. Thanks for putting the quite obvious effort and research into it.

I would like your opinion since you made a point about it in your review. Regarding the aftermarket, or lack thereof, do you think this will drive a slim margin of potential buyers into wranglers or FJ's or is the target buyer not really going to care about aftermarket parts?

oldirtybootz > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 13:01

0

Wow, I can't unsee the Racor face now. Thanks for that.

HammerheadFistpunch > KB Garage 11/27/2013 at 13:02

2

FJ's is dead after this year and if you were thinking about getting a wrangler, you'd have one already. No, people turned off will keep buying Xterra's and 4Runner Trails'.

There were 3 people there with me with Wranglers though; 1 lifted Rubicon, 1 stock Rubicon and 1 lifted TJ...and they were all very impressed with it off road.

HammerheadFistpunch > oldirtybootz 11/27/2013 at 13:03

2

KB Garage > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 13:08

0

It seemed like a bit of a stretch to make that association, but being out of the off-road game for a little while, I was unsure what other 4wd mid-size SUVs folks would be looking at.

Did not know that about the FJ. Thanks for the info. Once again, great review.

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 13:20

0

Saving this for the train ride home, can't wait.

Ray Wert > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 19:47

0

As an FYI, it's spelled "Hearst", not "Hurst."

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > HammerheadFistpunch 11/27/2013 at 20:08

1

Good write up, although what's the point if it isn't easily upgradable?

HammerheadFistpunch > Ray Wert 11/27/2013 at 20:48

0

Spelling was never my game. What did you think?

David Tracy > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 21:12

3

I've got some pretty epic video of the new Cherokee kicking ass at Moab.

Yes, the little KL Trailhawk has some seriously impressive rock crawling skills for a stocker.

And this is coming from an avid Jeep enthusiast (and XJ owner)

mcseanerson > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 21:26

0

Love that first paragraph, sounds so much like one of the buffbooks I swear you stole it.

HammerheadFistpunch > David Tracy 11/28/2013 at 21:38

0

were you on that press drive in the sand flats area? I've seen that footage, its okay, but it doesn't really reveal much.

Douglas Sonders > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 21:58

0

good meeting you BTW

TheMau5master > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 22:13

0

After owning 2 jeep liberties, I'm scared about the lack of torque on this new Cherokee. The transmission and especially torque converter had to work seriously hard on the old liberty to produce some usable power. The fact that this thing has more than twice the number of gears compared to my old liberty makes a lot more sense now. It will have to "mountainbike" to keep the revs within usable range with the downsized power-plant.

HammerheadFistpunch > Douglas Sonders 11/28/2013 at 22:27

0

You too, cant wait to see some of those shots. Hope you liked the review

Douglas Sonders > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 22:38

0

yup you were very thorough

Doctor-G-and-the-wagen > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 11/28/2013 at 22:58

0

I imagine if you give enough people time, they'll find ways to upgrade/convert it to something.

evilfacelessturtle (Hooning a Ford is Domestic Abuse) > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 23:09

0

I don't doubt that it's a great car, Chrysler is back on their game again. But why did they have to make it so damn ugly? The new GC is so handsome and it's been a huge hit. I just don't understand it...

Pete > HammerheadFistpunch 11/28/2013 at 23:14

0

"...ask an XJ owner how their doors close after a few years of off-roading."

Pffft ... my doors close just fine... the ones that can actually be opened that is.

yamanote > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 00:18

2

Toward for upshift and away for downshift is the correct way to do a sequential shifter.

WayDude > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 00:29

2

Really well done. This review might get me to sell my Tacoma and get the Jeep. I don't really need a truck but I need something capable for off road fun and camping and towing a small trailer. And I like the front end.

But.

Electronic parking brake? Ok, but I just seriously hate those. Not sure why, mostly because I like donuts I guess. Can't do one in a Tacoma (2010) though. Stupid traction control. You turn it off but then some other system activates. When I first got it i went into an empty snow covered parking lot and cranked the wheel and gunned it only to burn the rear brakes and drive in a nice circle. Which is kinda cool I guess but not a donut.

Manual. Yeah, ok. I like good gas mileage.

And finally, do they have a good sound system or a fancy option? At least the Tacoma offers a pretty good Rockford Fosgate with a sub woofer.

David Tracy > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 00:31

2

No. It's personal footage taken during an engineering road trip through the southwest.

I had a great time beatin' up that KL Trailhawk on the rocks of Moab. Is it as handsome as my ol' 92 XJ? No. Does it articulate as well? Nope. Is it as customizable? No. But, in Trailhawk form, it's very capable for a stocker. And surprisingly robust.

DangerRanger > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 00:46

0

"I grew up Jeeping in real SUV's (Cherokee, rodeo, etc) in Moab and the surrounding areas and I loved it but I knew I would eventually need a car meant for the road where I spent most of my time, I would trade capability for economy and ruggedness for cornering and ended up in a Subaru like most people did. ... there is no Wrangler MX5"

This review made me breath a sigh of relief, and even warmed my heart regarding this new Jeep. That Jeep managed to give it some real off-road-ability along with good road manners, especially since it's based on a road-only car platform, is beautiful.

The paragraph I quoted solidified your credibility with me. I just recently spent a week in Kanab with my father and a rented F-150 (Just like a rented car is the fastest car you'll drive, a rented truck, is the best off-roader). Knowing there was rough terrain between us and the best sights to see, we insisted at the rental place in 'Vegas that we get a 4x4, and drove off with the last one they had. Anyway, I know you guys are serious about your 4wd vehicles out there, and am envious of your lack of snowy, salty, roads that kill our old vehicles here in the East.

Anyway, I know that in that week we barely scratched the surface of the trails in that area, and Moab is similar. For everyone else, if the author grew up "Jeeping" (offroading) in Moab and is impressed by the new Cherokee, that means something.

And finally, the Subaru comment hit home for me because my first vehicle was a '95 Toyota pickup (it wasn't a Tacoma yet. Just a Toyota pickup) for a couple years, followed by a '97 Ranger that lasted almost 7 years. Both manual (and for those who say you can't rev-match and corner-carve in a truck, I sure-as-hell did in my Ranger. At slower speeds than a Miata, but at the truck's limits, which is always fun.)

And after the rear-end of my beloved Ranger seized up, I bought a '99 Forester. Just like you say, I ended up with a Subaru. It's a great car, and with good tires will get me everywhere I need to go despite any snowstorm (yes, you DD your RWD car/truck year round with all-seasons at best. Congrats. Up here, we have to get to work, every day, all year, no matter how bad the snow is. If you live on a steep back road, you need good tires, and you need all of your wheels to use them.), but it won't run the abandoned logging roads like my trucks did.

So it's heartening to read that there might be an off-road capable, on-road polite vehicle out there, and that Jeep is really committed to being the off-road Mazda. On the other hand, if I had the money to buy one of these new, I could buy a used Wrangler and a used MX-5, with money left to get them both sorted and ready to be heavily used for their respective purposes.

d3v > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 01:45

2

The manumatic "sport" function is of the VW autostick design, but is reverse polish in nature (towards you is upshift and away is downshift)...I.e. wrong.v

I.e correct . Pulling toward you to upshift and pushing away to downshift is how these things should be, just like in a racecar.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 01:47

0

Chrysler had been planning to offer a lower displacement penistar V6 all along. The new ZF 9 speed was what allowed them to do so. Between the amazing ratio spread of the transmission and all the gear reduction in the final drive system, they can get away with lower torque and improve on the Penistar's already good gas mileage.

d3v > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 01:53

0

No Evoque? If anything, that's the one SUV that this needs to be compared to when going off road.

dmcdonald > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 05:52

1

Check again...Trailhawk does indeed get the full size spare.

UN4GTBL > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 08:47

0

The Trailhawk has a full size spare according to jeep.ca

TomMetcalf > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 11/29/2013 at 09:34

0

I will be interested to see what the aftermarket does with the New Cherokee. I think that some of the fun of having a Jeep is upgrading. Some people upgrade Jeeps that see only pavement.

I really liked the review. As a former XJ owner, I would have some trouble getting over that it is not an XJ but the things that made the XJ lovable are going the way of the dodo. I think the only SUV's with solid axles front and rear are the Wrangler, Range Rover and G-Wagen. I guess the Rover and the G-Wagen prove you can still have comfort and on and offroad performance with solid axles. Take a note here Jeep and make more solid axles!

Ok, that turned into a mini-rant. Need more coffee.

HammerheadFistpunch > UN4GTBL 11/29/2013 at 10:07

0

There wasn't one in ours, but it may be the case on production models. I think this was a final dev model without a vin.

HammerheadFistpunch > dmcdonald 11/29/2013 at 10:08

0

ours didn't, but I think you are right. I think they come that way.

HammerheadFistpunch > d3v 11/29/2013 at 10:09

0

More rav4's are sold in a month than the entire land rover line...in a year. Its a competitor to the jeep in capability (well, but not really, since no low range), but its not a competitor in the marketplace. The big three for sales are the Ford, Honda and Toyota.

Zoom > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 10:41

0

Super Cool. I'm going to have to read print this one and read it a few more times.

/ a current '95 V-8 ZJ owner.

HammerheadFistpunch > Zoom 11/29/2013 at 10:51

0

ZJ's are pimp. I loved my family's 4.0 in white. Solid machine.

HammerheadFistpunch > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/29/2013 at 11:01

0

I think you are 100% right. I always find it interesting, however, when the smaller displacement engine doesn't have a size or weight advantage over a more powerful engine. I guess the 3.6 would make a great r/t model if the Cherokee is a huge sales success. Looking into this has been interesting. ZF has two models, the 28 and the 48 with different torque max. The 28 is maxed at 280 nm (206 ft-lbs)...which is less than the 239 in this engine, so you would assume they are using the 48 with a max of 480 nm (354 ft-lbs) which is more than the 3.6. It would make sense they used the 48 since the 28 is too weak. So that means that the transmission can handle the 3.6 power, and the 3.2 is dimensionally the same as the 3.6...why even bother with a new engine? The rav4 had a 3.5 v6, its not like it would be out of place? I guess you get better mileage, but it doesn't seem worth it to me.

HammerheadFistpunch > mcseanerson 11/29/2013 at 11:01

0

buffboooks?

HammerheadFistpunch > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 11/29/2013 at 11:04

0

To be honest, I think a 2 inch lift would be totally possible given the rear and front CV angles, but it would require a new alignment system, new front struts and new coils and shocks out back.

Maybe new control arms. It would be a lot of work.

mcseanerson > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 11:05

0

mt, R&T, c and d

HammerheadFistpunch > mcseanerson 11/29/2013 at 11:06

0

Gotcha, Yeah they all do that first paragraph business for some reason, I always skip it and then come back to it when Im bored and have read everything else in the mag.

exizeo - still loving fourza > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 12:13

1

Is it wrong that I love the back end?

HammerheadFistpunch > exizeo - still loving fourza 11/29/2013 at 12:19

1

it is not, is very attractive from the back. More so in person.

J. Walter Weatherman > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 12:50

0

Holy shit dude, this is absolutely epic. It is awesome that you were able to participate in this event, I am very jealous. Excellent write-up too, it is clear that you put a lot of effort into it.

To be honest, the styling of the Cherokee has grown on me a lot. I still need to see one in person, but the front no longer bothers me like it did when it was first unveiled. I appreciate the fact that Jeep took a risk on polarizing styling rather than just playing it safe.

I don't think that this is the car for me, but we have been considering CUVs for my wife's next car, and it seems like this could be one worth considering. What was the rear seat like? You mention that there is limited headroom, but what about legroom? Would it fit a car seat without having to move the front seats too far forward?

HammerheadFistpunch > J. Walter Weatherman 11/29/2013 at 12:54

0

As far as rear seats, the width is tight but the legroom is great. The seats, however, are deeply sculpted buckets so they might have that annoying feature I know you are away of in your Jetta where the tops of the front seats interfere with car seats in an obnoxious way. Check it out for yourself though. But, to be honest, with your 80 you are not lacking for a capable car, if it were me, I would get a forester NA with the stick. only 1 seconds slower to 60, a better drive and the space and vis is second to none.

TheNeonDriver - Now with More BMW! > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 13:06

0

You know what. That's awesome. Rancor face now at least makes it stand out. I wonder how this compares to the Compass, which it replaces (which is also based on a little hatchback platform). The Compass and the Patriot are everywhere up here (Norther Canada), owing to their better fuel economy and road manners over their (almost as ubiquitous) Wrangler cousins . I have seen a trail hawk at the local dealer, I may have to swing in for a look. Great Review!

HammerheadFistpunch > TheNeonDriver - Now with More BMW! 11/29/2013 at 13:08

0

This doesn't replace the patriot or compass, they live on for a few more years .

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 15:30

0

Larger displacement increases your parasitics and BSFC at cruise. Plus the 3.2 is probably ever so slightly less expensive. Comparing the 3.2 paired with a 9 speed and the 3.6 paired with the old five, the smaller engine yields equal performance with greater efficiency. So Chrysler gets a cheaper package and gets to sell it to customers for more money because it yields greater customer value. There you go, OEM Math 101.

HammerheadFistpunch > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/29/2013 at 15:34

0

I wonder what the BSFC difference is with the transmissions being equal, since its pretty evident to me now they are using the heavier ZF9HP48 instead of the lighter 28

TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 15:46

0

And probably prohibitively expensive ta boot.

HammerheadFistpunch > TheBloody, Oppositelock lives on in our shitposts. 11/29/2013 at 15:49

0

Yeah, can't be cheap.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 17:54

0

Well BSFC is dependent on the engine. The only difference the transmission could effect would be allowing for lower engine speed at any given vehicle speed, thus decreasing BSFC by lowering pumping losses. So, in short, depends on the ratio in high gear.

HammerheadFistpunch > Boss2452stolemylunchmoney 11/29/2013 at 17:57

0

Thats what I mean, I can't imagine the difference in consumption is greater than 5% between the two, where the bigger engine give you better torque, and a little more power. I know why they did it, to eak out each %, but a 3.6 R/T with Activedrive I would be a lot of fun.

Boss2452stolemylunchmoney > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 20:30

0

SRT-6???

jeepworker > HammerheadFistpunch 11/29/2013 at 22:04

1

I work in the Jeep plant. The grill definately looks better in person than in a picture. Haven't had the oppotunity to drive one yet, but am looking to buy one in the future. Jeep does offer a manual diesel, but only for Europe. Wish they offered one in the US. The local abc station had total access to the plant and did a 5 part series showing the Cherokee being made. Here is a link http://www.13abc.com/story/24001783…

HammerheadFistpunch > jeepworker 11/29/2013 at 22:13

0

Cool perspective, thanks for sharing. The grill isn't bad taken on its own, but Pretty as a whole it ain't. Europe gets all the cool stuff

GreenN_Gold > HammerheadFistpunch 12/13/2013 at 17:27

0

Great post, I enjoyed it, thanks.

One tiny nitpick, "pokey" means slow, and I don't think that what you were trying to say.

HammerheadFistpunch > GreenN_Gold 12/13/2013 at 17:29

0

I see what your getting at. A better less confusing word would have been better there. Thanks for the feedback. My writing um...whats the right word...sucks and I know it, so feedback is important.

GreenN_Gold > HammerheadFistpunch 12/13/2013 at 17:50

0

The writing seemed acceptable to me, not that I'm qualified to judge.

scruffinater > HammerheadFistpunch 04/10/2014 at 14:32

1

First off, nice review... it's always nice to get a non-autojourno's take (purveyor of fine automotive literature ~= autojourno right?).

But:

"The manumatic "sport" function is of the VW autostick design, but is reverse polish in nature (towards you is upshift and away is downshift)...I.e. wrong."

Noooooooooooooo! That is the right way! Why? Because racecar. Yes, I know this is anything but a racecar, but the logic still holds: generally you upshift when accelerating so you are being [somewhat] pressed back into your seat making the pull towards you motion more natural, and generally you downshift when you are decelerating so you are being 'pushed' forward out of your seat making the push away from you motion more natural.

HammerheadFistpunch > scruffinater 04/10/2014 at 14:40

0

fair enough, I figure I could learn and adjust, but to me it felt wrong.

aae42 > scruffinater 05/15/2016 at 11:14

0

yep, also on bikes, any sequential, this makes sense... i want to pull back to upshift, push forward to down...