If you don't like the new cherokee...you don't get it

[cuban b]

Hear me out and tell me if I'm wrong. Also realize this is coming from a guy who thinks jk's strayed to far from the jeep recipe. I haven't driven one yet. That said, decent power, 30mpg, very respectable crawl ratio, and a locker make a pretty awesome package.

I get that it is not a wrangler. It isn't easily buildable and I have no idea how durable it will be.

It looks like the best camping/fishing/hunting/daily driver available. There are multiple threads on RME with people discussing the coolness of honda crv's and similar vehicles. For years I've been wishing for something like a CRV with low range and the new cherokee brings it (allegedly).

I have a TJ, a buggy, a truck, and a commander and I do way too much of my camping in a suzuki esteem because of gas prices.

Unless they implode after two years I WILL own a new cherokee even if it does have a face like a bucket full of A-holes.

 

[skeptic]

I have to agree. As long as you are not buying one to wheel, but just to get out to your camping/fishing/hunting spots it would be great. Of course in that case, a Grand Cherokee starts looking really good as well. I'm a bit biased in that I work from home, so mpg isn't as high on my priority list as it is for others.

 

[sixstringsteve]

I think they should have called it something other than a cherokee. I'm getting the terminology wrong, but on the review I read, they mentioned that since the transfer case wasn't a true 4wd lock, there were segments that they couldn't get up because it kept giving the power to the front instead of the rear. So a rear locker is cool, but only if it can get the power back there.

However, in the context of a SUC, the new cherokee seems a lot more capable than a CRV or a Rav4 or a Forester. I think my problem is that they're marketing it as if it were a super capable offroader. And yeah, they're hideous.

If I had to buy a jeep for camping, I'd rather have an older cherokee, or a commander with a small lift, or maybe even a compass. I'll bet the ifs/irs is pretty smooth on washboard roads though.

 

[rholbrook]

I went and looked at them. The front end turned my wife away. The inside is nice, size seems good but that front end is ugly.

 

[cuban b]

It doesn't have a transfer case, but there probably is a diff front to rear. I can't remember right now. The review I read (four wheeler magazine) said it was ridiculously capable for what it was. It lost in the shootout with a grand cherokee and a new land rover by only a tiny margin which was accounted for by luxury interiors and 500hp in the rover.

Commanders are cool and so are old cherokees, but neither can approach 30mpg which guarantees I will do more exploring.

 

[roverrocks]

I like the new 2014 Cherokee Trailhawk. If I was in the market for a new vehicle and something offroad capable in that small suv segment it would be my first choice by far. The looks have grown on me.

 

[N-Smooth]

I think they're kinda cool for the reasons you listed and not at all because it says "jeep" or "cherokee" on it. I do think they're ugly but they look less worse in person than in pictures.

If I was in the market for such a vehicle it would really come down to the price. It would be hard for me to pick it over the CRV because I know it's a quality product and the jeep has a lot of question marks around it

 

[benjy]

Commanders are cool and so are old cherokees, but neither can approach 30mpg which guarantees I will do more exploring.

Wouldn't the price difference pay for A LOT of gas?

 

[cuban b]

It will pay for a lot of gas, but my wife usually drives the commander, the TJ gets old on long trips and it doesn't pay for enough gas to justify driving my truck everywhere. I know I'm a weirdo with a car for every purpose, but it works for me. That is why I find myself offroad in a 98 suzuki esteem way too often.

With gas prices only going up, I could easily cover a car payment with what I save driving the suzuki instead of my truck. I'm also assuming that the horrible resale value of jeep vehicles will have them right in my range in a couple years.

 

[STAG]

To each their own. Not for me.

 

[Gravy]

As a certified XJ mental case I used to hate them.

I sat in a Trailhawk at the autoshow.
I kinda like them now. A lot.
My only quip is that they should have called them by a different name.

One fully optioned out (even with AC seats) is so inexpensive and so much more capable compared to the other vehicles in the segment.

If I could afford one, that would be the momma car for sure.

 

[TJDukit]

I would never own one for one simple reason. I think they are hideous. I don't care what is on the inside, they could come with a hemi and I still wouldn't own one. I checked them out at the auto show and it only confirmed for me how much I dislike them.

I am by no means arguing any type of functionality whatsoever, it could be the most capable and fuel efficient off road rig and I still don't like the way it looks so I wouldn't even consider it.

 

[roverrocks]

To each their own. Not for me.

The model you show does not interest me either but the Trailhawk edition is a whole different matter. The Trailhawk DOES interest me.

 

[TurboMinivan]

However, in the context of a SUC, the new cherokee seems a lot more capable than a CRV or a Rav4 or a Forester. I think my problem is that they're marketing it as if it were a super capable offroader.

They're marketing it as ultra-capable because it is... in its class. The new Cherokee is not designed to outpace a Wrangler Rubicon on, well, the Rubicon Trail. It is designed for someone who would buy a CR-V/Forester/RAV4 but wants more dirt road capability, which it has in spades.

Of course, some would say promoting yourself as the most off-road capable compact SUV is akin to bragging about being the slimmest member of The Fat Boys.

 

[I Lean]

I've seen several references to this thing's offroad abilities--what exactly does it have to make it capable? It has no Tcase, right? So it's a safe assumption that it doesn't have low range. It doesn't have much clearance, although it wouldn't take much to eclipse the no clearance others have I suppose. What gives?

 

[notajeep]

The trail Hawk has both a low range and a 50/50 toque split in addition to a real rear locker and traction control.
If I'm remembering correctly

 

[Cascadia]

Everytime I see a trail hawk I like them more and more. I will never own one but they are definitely growing on me. But only the trail hawk model.

 

[Caleb]

The model you show does not interest me either but the Trailhawk edition is a whole different matter. The Trailhawk DOES interest me.

All those two comparisons do is show real world vs. a dealer photo. Take the shine off that trailhawk and it looks the same as the picture posted above.

 

[jallen9]

I kind of like it in the super ugly green color.

I think most people (including me) are wanting a return to the old solid front and rear axle cherokee. it's not going to happen, especially with rumors that even the wrangler is going to IFS. for what it is, it's a great little car, but datgum that front end is ugly​.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

In its defense, the Trailhawk has a different front bumper for better approach angle, I would never own one though. Some good reading here http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/121571-Cherokee-Trailhawk-vs-Grand-Cherokee-Laredo