Full Size Jeep Network

I am embarrassed for jeep..This looks like a a kia. I wish they would have came out with a smart bantam..

I don't like the Cherokee at all, but i do own a '12 Grand Cherokee with the Hemi. Its great for a highway vehicle. Like others have posted, the orange Trailhawk would be the one to have.

Mine is a silver Altitude in the snow pic(i actually don't have a picture of the full Jeep on my phone, I'll post one later), second pic is what the trail hawk should have come like , and third is what the REAL Trailhawk is.

At least the new Cherokee doesn't look like the top picture.
Sent from the middle of nowhere.

We're going to look at one tonite in Pittsburgh. I kinda like the Trail Hawk version. Motor HP sucks though. Probably end up with a '14 Grand Cherokee for the wifey! Pics later!

wvrefugee wrote:We're going to look at one tonite in Pittsburgh. I kinda like the Trail Hawk version. Motor HP sucks though. Probably end up with a '14 Grand Cherokee for the wifey! Pics later!

The V6 model actually isnt bad. I have driven it (up here in the hills) and while it doesnt have the punch of the Hemi, its FAR better on fuel and is fine for daily driving.

Stuka wrote:

wvrefugee wrote:We're going to look at one tonite in Pittsburgh. I kinda like the Trail Hawk version. Motor HP sucks though. Probably end up with a '14 Grand Cherokee for the wifey! Pics later!

The V6 model actually isnt bad. I have driven it (up here in the hills) and while it doesnt have the punch of the Hemi, its FAR better on fuel and is fine for daily driving.

I say just wait a couple months for the diesel option!!!

I wish Jeep/Chrysler would go under so they can stop embarrassing them selves. I may have to go slap some IH badges on my trucks out of shame soon.

nc wagoneer wrote:

Stuka wrote:

wvrefugee wrote:We're going to look at one tonite in Pittsburgh. I kinda like the Trail Hawk version. Motor HP sucks though. Probably end up with a '14 Grand Cherokee for the wifey! Pics later!

The V6 model actually isnt bad. I have driven it (up here in the hills) and while it doesnt have the punch of the Hemi, its FAR better on fuel and is fine for daily driving.

I say just wait a couple months for the diesel option!!!

Agree!

nc wagoneer wrote:

Stuka wrote:

wvrefugee wrote:We're going to look at one tonite in Pittsburgh. I kinda like the Trail Hawk version. Motor HP sucks though. Probably end up with a '14 Grand Cherokee for the wifey! Pics later!

The V6 model actually isnt bad. I have driven it (up here in the hills) and while it doesnt have the punch of the Hemi, its FAR better on fuel and is fine for daily driving.

I say just wait a couple months for the diesel option!!!

Diesel won't make it any prettier...

lindel wrote:Diesel won't make it any prettier...

Whats wrong with what the Grand Cherokee looks like? I personally think its the best looking GC ever.

I don't like the grille treatment, other than that, it's ok.

Ended up with the GC Overland 2014. Sweet ride with the Hemi!!

Awesome, Congratulations!

Back on topic for the Cherokee, interesting info from Mike Manley (Jeep CEO). The Trail Hawk edition of the is Trail Rated, which means it went through the Rubicon. It has a surprisingly good 4wd system that allows it to move with just 2 tires on the ground. It also has a rear selectable locker







And a bit of video talking about it and the diesel Wrangler:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjJWauJGI5k[/youtube]

I ran across one on the highway today - I can't get the XJ to stop sobbing hysterically. They should've let the Cherokee nameplate maintain its dignity and just called this the Jeep WTF. Watering down Jeep with badge engineered stuff like this probably isn't going to end well.

Just for this, I'm going to find the Navajo blanket stripes to put on the XJ when it gets repainted and reinforce the heritage. We got some pics of it parked next to an M715 we ran across for sale and you can clearly see the relationship, not gonna happen with the new one.

Dirtmonkey wrote:I ran across one on the highway today - I can't get the XJ to stop sobbing hysterically. They should've let the Cherokee nameplate maintain its dignity and just called this the Jeep WTF. Watering down Jeep with badge engineered stuff like this probably isn't going to end well.

Just for this, I'm going to find the Navajo blanket stripes to put on the XJ when it gets repainted and reinforce the heritage. We got some pics of it parked next to an M715 we ran across for sale and you can clearly see the relationship, not gonna happen with the new one.

The new Cherokee is not badge engineered. Yes it uses an existing platform for its basis (Every Jeep does except for the JK), but it is a highly modified version of the existing Giulietta's platform. So much so that its almost its own platform now.

And it should be noted when the XJ came out, with its uni-frame design, everybody at the time called it a water down POS that didn't deserve the Jeep nameplate. It didn't have a ladder frame, it was small, no tail gate, horrible engines (It had the GM i4 and horrible V6 until '87), and was considered an SUV for women.

As time moves on, the masses (ie: 95% of buyers) demand that newer vehicles ride better, get better fuel economy, have more power, better braking, better interiors, etc etc. Not to mention all auto makers have to meet CAFE standards for fuel economy. If Jeep is going to retain a vehicle like the Wrangler, they have to have vehicles like the Cherokee, the new Jeepster, etc to offset the Wranglers poor fuel economy.

The CAFE point is a good one. They should've left the TJ alone with a 4 cylinder option. If I can get a consistent 20 mpg out of the CJ7 (Iron Duke 4 banger) with a marginal 4 speed, low gears, 31's, weird Rochester carb, and no electronics other than the HEI, what could Jeep do with an EFI TJ and a 5 speed?

A couple of points on the XJ though - they never had the GM 4 banger. They were always the 2.5 AMC, the 2.8 GM boat anchor only lived for 2 years, and the US only got the awesomely bad Renault diesel for 2 years as well. I don't remember there being much naysaying about the XJ - I remember Randall's AMC couldn't keep them on the lot, and it took quite a while for the buying frenzy to slow down enough to get much in the way of choices on one. I honestly think they'd have been better off recycling the Eagle nameplate for this thing, since it really does evoke memories of the original weird looking crossover. Save the Cherokee name for something that at least LOOKS like Toledo was involved in the design process.

Ah you are right, it was the AMC i4. The CJ's had the iron duke.

Biggest reason the TJ went away was crash standards and its high drag coefficient. Crash standards can be blamed for a lot of vehicles becoming larger. "Compact" cars today are lager than mid size sedans from 20 years ago.

Jeep also wanted to get rid of the 4.0 because it was a very expensive engine to make. Having a single engine that only goes into one vehicle is expensive. Which is unfortunate as it was a good engine. But would have required a lot of work to get the power that modern engines make. And the 2006 Wrangler with a 4cyl with 147hp (19mpg HWY) gets worse fuel economy than a 2013 4dr Wrangler (21 mpg HWY) with its 285hp V6. Although that can partly be blamed on the 4cyl that was used in the TJ. A more modern direct injected one would do better. But also has a lot to do with aerodynamics, which were very poor on the TJ in comparison to the JK.

I guess my point is while the new KL Cherokee does not have the boxy looks of the XJ, it could be argued that in stock form, it will go more places than an XJ. Thanks mostly to having an optional electric locker, better crawl ratio, and a advance traction control system. I know it seems strange because it doesn't have solid axles. And an XJ with a few mods will easily out wheel the KL. But then there is the fact that the majority of CUV/SUV buyers today, will never so much as drive on a dirt road. They much rather have the better ride and handling of independent suspension, and so on. Jeep has relegated offroading to the Wrangler, which is fine. And they still make sure their other vehicles can offroad, just not to the same level as the Wrangler. The KL will easily out wheel its competition (Escape, RAV4, CRV). but ultimately they must cater to the masses in order to stay in business.

Ok, I am done rambling now

I'm just not down for the crossovers. For the past year or so, I have been painstakingly researching the market for a vehicle that will do what my family needs without too many compromises. I had hoped when I heard the Cherokee was coming back that Jeep wanted to sell me a new ride, since I've always had at least one of their products around. What I got was another huge disappointment. We went and test drove a JK Unlimited - nice, but had even more rattles than my 34 year old CJ7 with a hell of a lot more to go wrong. Same day we drove a new Grand Cherokee, and without taking a shot at the expected (but ridiculous) level of "bling", I will say that it was exponentially more cramped and uncomfortable for me than my buddy's PT Cruiser. Given their almost complete lack of towing ability, the Patriot and Compass weren't even considered.

Jeep has some catching up to do to get back the segment of the market that isn't interested in "cute" or "luxury".

Stuka wrote:Ah you are right, it was the AMC i4. The CJ's had the iron duke.

Biggest reason the TJ went away was crash standards and its high drag coefficient. Crash standards can be blamed for a lot of vehicles becoming larger. "Compact" cars today are lager than mid size sedans from 20 years ago.

Jeep also wanted to get rid of the 4.0 because it was a very expensive engine to make. Having a single engine that only goes into one vehicle is expensive. Which is unfortunate as it was a good engine. But would have required a lot of work to get the power that modern engines make. And the 2006 Wrangler with a 4cyl with 147hp (19mpg HWY) gets worse fuel economy than a 2013 4dr Wrangler (21 mpg HWY) with its 285hp V6. Although that can partly be blamed on the 4cyl that was used in the TJ. A more modern direct injected one would do better. But also has a lot to do with aerodynamics, which were very poor on the TJ in comparison to the JK...

Hey now...

Saw one in person yesterday. Even uglier than the pictures.

Dang thing looks like a Explorer with squinty eyes... Not interested...

As I posted in the Wagoneer thread on the other board, "I have yet to see any new vehicle in the last ten, heck thirteen years that I would spend 10K on, let alone 50K. Nothing out there appeals to me. The ones I would buy are just still concepts or are no longer manufactured."