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

[roverrocks]

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.

The dealer picture does NOT show a Trailhawk edition but only an unTrailhawk edition that is low slung, has little tires, probably no V6, and probably is only 2 wheel drive.. The two are world's apart in offroad capability and mechanical components. Like comparing a base Wrangler with a Rubicon. They both have the Wrangler look but are world's apart and I most ceratinly am NOT comparing any kind of Wrangler with a new Cherokee as far as offroad ability. Just a base 2014 Cherokee with the 2014 Trailhawk edition.

 

[cuban b]

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?

It has no t-case because it uses range boxes (2 speed diffs) giving a 56:1 crawl ratio. It has a rear locker in the trailhawk, and as far as I can tell locks the front and rear 50/50 when in low range.

The maroon trailhawk posted is changing my mind on the looks too. It's odd, but also cool.

 

[sixstringsteve]

This review here says there's no true 4x4:

http://www.fourwheeler.com/vehicle-reviews/1308-2014-jeep-cherokee-kl-hits-the-dirt/

"The level of torque split depends on the 4x4 system, the system’s terrain settings, and sensed tire slippage. In other words, there is no true 4x2 or 4x4 selection. The computer determines how much power to send to the rear wheels and when to send it, which can prove frustrating at times. But more on that later."

"Despite being in low range with the rear locker engaged and the traction control off, it kept chopping power as tire speed was being generated. The rock was covered in loose sand and as soon as the rear would start to climb the computer cut throttle and the vehicle would roll back a foot or so to the bottom."

"We absolutely didn’t like the 4x4 system. Even in low range, Rock mode, and with the rear diff locked the Active Drive system only sends power to the rear wheels when it senses tire slippage. The result is a very distinct inability to drive elegantly. You line up at an obstacle and start to climb and the rear kicks in only after the front tires start to spin. In a sense, you drive the Active Drive Lock system like you would an old GM pickup with a Gov-Lok rear differential: generate a lot of wheel spin and then – Bam – the other side starts pulling. It was fine for the novice drivers in the group who were just ham-fisting up hills hard on the gas, but for experienced off-roaders like us used to driving elegantly, it was counterintuitive and not enjoyable."​

Sixtringsteve talking here, I still think it's far more capable than a rav4 or crv, but in my mind it's strayed too far from the cherokee to be mentioned in the same sentence. It's a cool car for what it is, but I wouldn't want to run fins n things or anything harder in it. It seems most at home driving the kids to soccer on the weekdays, and camping on dirt roads on the weekends.

 

[sixstringsteve]

At least it has a unibody like the old XJs.

 

[ttora4runner]

Looked at them at the Utah Auto Show and they don't look as bad in person but I think they are still blah!

 

[spencurai]

If you guys want jeep to survive then start buying those ugly piles of crap. Not enough people bought Pontiac Aztecs and now look where Pontiac is? It was a great soft-roader too and it came with that overland approved tent...straight expedition gangsta! Where's the fiat-cherokee tent action? I am disappointed!

 

[Spork]

I don't get a lot of things and I guess I can add the new Cherokee to the list...

I can't see myself buying one even in the used market.

 

[Tacoma]

I'll say it again: The new Cherokee is the best car Jeep ever made. But Jeep doesn't make cars. So there's that.

If it was somethign else, like a Subaru, I might be able to give it some slack, but it is a massive, sad corruption of an idea, the concept of a capable OFFROAD vehicle. This car does not fill the shoes of the Cherokee by any means.

So, I've got to not like it.

 

[SAMI]

:wtf:

 

[mesha]

Jeep already tried the car thing. They called it a compass. The new cherokee is a better car than the compass and a better off-road machine.

A cherokee would be a great exploration/camping rig. I have been trying to talk my wife into one for quite some time now, but she wants a subaru.

 

[Tacoma]

I wouldn't mind one lowered, with a turbo and some race wheels or something.

As an offroad vehicle, for the price, there are many more rational choices available.

 

[Stephen]

As others have said, I think that this would be an intriguing soft-roader. Problem is, there are WAY to many vehicles that beat this in that category on the used market. Even if you figure in the fuel economy of the Grand Compass Armada here, it doesn't off set buying a good used Cherokee, Trooper, Montero, CRV, Rav-4, or Oldsmobile Toranado. Now maybe in a few years when these start plummeting in price and you can buy a clean one thats never seen dirt from an aging soccer mom for pennies on the dollar, sure. That said, they are still hideously ugly. I mean, really, really fugly. And that right there means I'm out on owning one. Maybe if they changed the front end, I'd be interested in 20 years or so.

 

[roverrocks]

Jeep should market this SEMA version.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/jeep-c...ere-no-crossovers-gone-before-2013-sema-show/

 

[Hickey]

I like Subaru, except the Forester (lesbian truck).

The new Cherokee makes a Forester look good.

 

[Hickey]

Jeep should market this SEMA version.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/jeep-c...ere-no-crossovers-gone-before-2013-sema-show/

Nope. Still too squinty-eyed.

 

[Kevin B.]

The back end is not that bad. Very crossoverish, but that's what's in style now I guess so whatever. But I can't get over that abortion of a grill. I thought the new 4Runner fronts were bad, but these new Jeeps are hideous.

 

[roverrocks]

The back end is not that bad. Very crossoverish, but that's what's in style now I guess so whatever. But I can't get over that abortion of a grill. I thought the new 4Runner fronts were bad, but these new Jeeps are hideous.

You want 2014 hideous front ends look at these. The 2014 Trail hawk ain't bad at all IMO. These are abortions.

 

[cuban b]

The stuff you mentioned is not in any way comparable to the new cherokee, though. crv's and rav 4's aren't even in the same universe and troopers and monteros can't compete with the mileage. I love old cherokees, but I don't want to drive one on long trips. I also can't compare the two, I'm looking at the new cherokee as a nice new run around/camping car. Cherokees that still fit that description are getting hard to find and I don't want any more projects.

I have to agree somewhat with Tacoma that it is a very off-road capable car, and I'm ok with that.

As others have said, I think that this would be an intriguing soft-roader. Problem is, there are WAY to many vehicles that beat this in that category on the used market. Even if you figure in the fuel economy of the Grand Compass Armada here, it doesn't off set buying a good used Cherokee, Trooper, Montero, CRV, Rav-4, or Oldsmobile Toranado. Now maybe in a few years when these start plummeting in price and you can buy a clean one thats never seen dirt from an aging soccer mom for pennies on the dollar, sure. That said, they are still hideously ugly. I mean, really, really fugly. And that right there means I'm out on owning one. Maybe if they changed the front end, I'd be interested in 20 years or so.

 

[TJDukit]

But if you take the price difference of a Trailhawk vs and old Cherokee, CRV, Montero or Rav 4 how long is it going to take to make that up in fuel mileage. Not to mention you are stuck driving something that looks like I just dropped it off in the toilet.

 

[Stephen]

The stuff you mentioned is not in any way comparable to the new cherokee, though. crv's and rav 4's aren't even in the same universe and troopers and monteros can't compete with the mileage. I love old cherokees, but I don't want to drive one on long trips. I also can't compare the two, I'm looking at the new cherokee as a nice new run around/camping car. Cherokees that still fit that description are getting hard to find and I don't want any more projects.

I have to agree somewhat with Tacoma that it is a very off-road capable car, and I'm ok with that.

You're missing the point. What you're saying you want to do is buy a new car for $30,000 (undoubtably financed) so that you can then get GREAT mileage so you can get out more. Sorry, thats stupid. Buy a used vehicle for $3,000 or less, cash, and take the money you saved from paying 10 times less, not paying interest and not having to carry comprehensive insurance; put that in the tank and go exploring. Sure, it may only get 18mpg as opposed to 30mpg, but it's going to take a lot of fill ups to cover the distance between $3,000 and $30,000! Plus your car won't be ugly and people won't make fun of you.