Find Reviews by Make:
Jeep finally released the rest of the Cherokee lineup, including the more rugged Trailhawk version (above). The new Cherokee will have a choice of the Dart’s 2.4L Tigershark 4-cylinder, or a 3.2L version of the Pentastar V6, making 271 horsepower. Power will come through a 9-speed automatic transmission.
A selection of different all-wheel drive systems will be available. Jeep Active Drive I will be a basic all-wheel drive system, whle Jeep Active Drive II will include a low-range mode. Jeep Active Drive will have low-range and a rear locking differential. None of these modes will employ a transfer case – instead, there will be a planetary gearset at the differentials.
105 Comments on “2014 Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk Revealed...”
Read all comments
This thing really has a lot of Isuzu Vehi-Cross in the front. That can’t be good.
I thought the same thing when images were released a few weeks back. The trailhawk version makes it look even more similar.
I don’t want to come across as wishy-washy but…….this has to be the ugliest front end I have ever seen. Hell it makes an Aztek look good. Don’t like the ass-end either
And I like Jeeps, have even owned two.
I’m not sure which looks worse, the “Vehi-cross” (or Juke) in the front end or the first generation Chevy Traverse in the rear.
The rear license plate is mounted way, way too low and makes the whole rear look very awkward with its endles expanse of blank sheet metal.
@Easton, light colored Traverse from the rear = great white whale
The best looking JEEP was the 2008 JeepGCSRT.
Despite the 2012 JeepGC looking great inside and out, the 2012 JeepSRT looks too gawdy.
Hopefully public outcry stops this horror show from seeing the light of day.
The darker colors and lack of chrome accents on the Trailhawk represents it better.
The blinged out Limited is just awful.
Ir looks absolutely better in the de-chromed Trailhawk version, especially in the medium gray paint choices. See the Jeep site
I must be losing it, or its the lack of coffee, but the Trailhawk fixes a lot of problems I had with the vehicle. I would almost say that it’s…interesting?
I saw a blue one in the flesh and liked it quite a lot.
Nope, I thought the exact same thing. This Trailhawk version is almost attractive to me… amazing how a model can swing so far from ugly to (almost) good with just some minor paint and accent changes.
Absolutely. It’s just a few minor touches, but they’re very effective in butching up the styling. The Limited, by comparison, screams mommy-mobile.
Planetary gearset at the diffs? That is certainly an interesting way of doing low range. Any other vehicles out there currently using that sort of setup? I’ve not heard of any.
I don’t know if there are, but someone else here might. I haven’t even heard of a system like that before, to be honest.
@krhodes1 & Derek Kreindler
A planetary gear setup is okay.
We use them in aviation to drive flight control surfaces. Leading edge flaps do use a planetary transmission.
Our ones are reliable, they have to be, you can’t park on a cloud and call roadside assistance:)
9-speed transmission? Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. I thought the 6-speed was bad for constantly up-shifting and driving one gear too high. This thing would never stop shifting gears and would make for an awful driving experience.
The new Chrysler TC, by Huffy.
I agree that it’s awful.
It’s not awful because it’s objectively ugly (though one could persuasively make that case), but because it’s extremely effeminate. The interior is positively effeminate, also.
This have striking similarities with Hyundais, also.
This is not what even a modern Jeep should look like.
Maybe that 2.4L, gutless engine, needs all those gears to stay in it’s power band.
None of the new Tigershark 2.4l engines have been released to the public yet. A year’s delay since it was announced kind of makes you wonder what’s up.
I agree…You know then a ten speed is probably not far off. I wonder who will be the first to develop it?
Ten speed transmission… ten speed… ten speed bike… bikes… Baruth… Oldsmobile… spandex… ITS ALL COMING TOGETHER.
This criticism seemed a bit fabricated to me or based on a lack of knowledge/experience. This 9-speed is the ZF unit used by Range Rover too, and it’s barely longer than a typical 6-speed, so it fits quite well into the same applications. It uses 4 planetary gear seats with 6 shift elements (the 8-speed ZF used by BMW has 5 shift elements, whereas the 8-speed used by Lexus has 7 shift elements and is more complex).
The lowest gear on this is supposed to be good for off-road because it’s very low, so it makes sense for this type of vehicle. The gear ratio spread is almost 10:1, and Honda is allegedly considering using this transmission.
If you think the continuous shifting of a 9-speed would “make an awful driving experience,” you probably haven’t even ridden in the 6-speeds you’re complaining about. The shifting is largely imperceptible in the good 6-speed autos, and they are far more often in the right gear. The latest 6-speeds are far better than the crappy 4-speed autos we had before.
Being one gear too high has absolutely nothing to do with being a 6-speed — it has to do with tuning for EPA purposes. Some cars have a “sport mode” to put you one gear lower than regular mode most of the time.
re:crtfour’s comment
Does a 10-speed require another planetary gearset? If it does, it might be quite far off.
It’s all fine and I like how the 6-speed drives in my car (it has a sport mode, yes), but the two big questions are cost and longevity.
I have plenty of experience driving a wide variety of models built in the last 2 years. I own a Ram 1500 with the 6-speed. Few cars offer a “sport mode” even today. I know what I’m talking about, thanks.
I think all Audis with a standard automatic or DSG offer a sport mode. The 8-speed in my car provides better highway mileage and better acceleration by more effectively keeping the engine in its powerband than any old 4-speed could have.
Excuse me Mr Aamco,”how much did you say it would cost to rebuild my trans”?
I don’t think I heard you right.
I’m never going to like this design – ever. You could remove the center grille slat, and put a Hyundai or Kia badge on, and nobody would ever question it.
Would you, could you, in the dark?
Would you, could you with a dork? Because this thing has PROJECT MANAGER, SILICON VALLEY written all over it.
Perfect, just finished reading that to my kids.
Eeww! You got your onions in my peanut butter. No, YOU got your peanut butter in my onions…! HURL
The image is akin to Barbie in a safari outfit.
http://i2.cdnds.net/12/48/618×467/showbiz-lady-gaga-safari-2.jpg
Problem???
Yeah, that’s about right.
I understand that advances in lighting technology permit the same or greater illumination from a smaller unit, but I wish that the stylists would, for the sake of tradition, make the main headlight package at least as large or slightly larger than the auxiliary lights. Put another way, if the headlights can be that small, why do the fog lights have to be so large?
Also, since reading Alex’s review of the Fusion, I’ve become more aware of rear bodywork that falls in line with the bumper. This looks like another offender where any contact able to compress the bumper skin will pass on expensive damage to the hatch. You may never do such a thing but enough people will to jack up collision premiums.
The designers in Turin would have had a cleaner look if they had integrated the parking / turn signal assemblies with those miniscule headlights – In other words, ditch those distracting fender assemblies. –
I’ll bet the real fun comes when it is time to install new headlamp bulbs – if access to the bulbs is limited.
That tail end is futt-bugly – I’m trying to imagine the rear with vertical tail light assemblies.
You do realize that the fender lights are parking lights and/or turn signals, right? And the bumper-mounted lights are headlights? Fogs are at the bottom.
No I didn’t. In that case it just looks dumb. Surely they could have come up with a look where the upper lights looked like they belonged to the same car.
I think it looks cool, but then I’m unlikely to buy it as I prefer cars.
Still, cool design up front, but why’d they bail on the rear end? Looks like they lifted it right off a Kia. It doesn’t look bad, but it does look like a shameless copy.
Tigershark engine??? LOL! That’s the name of the Dart engine??
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha!
I agree about the “tigershark” engine name – just silly regardless of what vehicle you put it in. But I like the look – at least it’s interesting. It may be somewhat derivitive, but these days not much isn’t.
Whats more important is the ruggedness and durability of the materials and bulid quality in general. It looks a little more fragile than I’m used to from Jeep…
The front end is good. The rear is too saggy. I like the CAD / CAM fit and finish.
Nope, still uglier than homemade sin.
And can we get away from the design of tapering the glass to nothing towards the rear? I mean, hell I can hide my 18 foot long land yacht in the rear view of my mom’s Rendezvous, this Heep can’t be any better.
One of the great things about the old XJ Cherokee was it had visibility!
I keep hoping that it’s an April Fools joke and Derek hasn’t looked closely enough at the calendar.
Unlike the conservative TTAC readership, I like it. No manual transmission at all, though? Pity.
For Europe apparently, there is. NA, doubtful.
I didn’t like it at first, but I’m warming up to the design. The capability appears to be pretty impressive with the locking rear diff and low gear range, and it’ll apparently be able to tow 4500lbs. Other vehicles in it’s class really don’t offer any of this.
“Jeep Active Drive I will be a basic all-wheel drive system, whle Jeep Active Drive II will include a low-range mode. Jeep Active Drive will have low-range and a rear locking differential. ”
Admittedly I didn’t have my coffee today, but that makes no sense to me. Did you mean for the final sentence to begin with “Jeep Active Drive III”??? [see also: the need for an “i” in “while”]
Mental note: Hug my XJ when I get home today. It will surely need it when it sees what its grandkids have become.
Why bother to offer a faux off-road version? It is still hobbled by low ground clearance, car suspension, and terrible approach, departure, and break-over angles. I don’t know much about the 4×4 system but I imagine it’ll be weaker and more complex than a traditional transfer case. Locking rear differential? Hilarious. That’s like a Corolla with an F1 wing.
I was starting to come to terms with Jeep softening its image and offering a CUV as one of its mainstream models but pretending that it has any sort of off-road chops is super lame. I’m still waiting for Ashton Kutcher to appear – this entire Cherokee launch is like a bad version of Punk’d and keeps getting worse.
So, you should look at numbers first. While the face might be controversial… (Thx Jalop, for once, something useful!)
Approach Angle: 38º (XJ) versus 29.8º (2014)
Departure Angle: 31º (XJ) versus 32.1º (2014)
Breakover Angle: 21º (XJ) versus 23.2º (2014)
round clearance on an XJ was 7.3 inches for a stock Cherokee and 8.3 inches for the Upcountry versions. The running ground clearance of the new Trailhawk Cherokee? 8.7 inches. Booyah.
So, you should look at numbers first. While the face might be controversial, you’ll find similar hard-numbers to the much vaunted XJ… (Thx Jalop, for once, something useful!)
Approach Angle: 38º (XJ) versus 29.8º (2014)
Departure Angle: 31º (XJ) versus 32.1º (2014)
Breakover Angle: 21º (XJ) versus 23.2º (2014)
Ground clearance:7.3″ (XJ) versus 8.7″ (2014)
Not only that, but the upskirt photos show pretty beefy IRS for a softroader. And have you ever rebuilt a transfer case? Give me a well-designed modern alternative on my part-time off-roader, full-time snow car.
Odds are Jeep will continue to make stuff for the Parking-Lot Trail Queen, but I am glad to see the heart of the company is still there with this. If you want a bare-bones rock crawler, build it yourself – don’t complain that the mass-market manufacturer isn’t,
Yes, I have rebuilt one. I’ll take it any day over digging into a FWD transaxle.
I’ve had my 1995 XJ for the past 7 years. It has 198,000km on it and still runs beautifully on road and some light off-road work at the local beach. As I keep up with the maintenance and don’t drive it very often, I expect that it will run for another 10 to 15 years without major problems.
So while those “hard numbers” may be similar, I doubt the long term longetivity will be the same.
Sure, the interior is woefully outdated on my XJ. The ride on-road isn’t great (though much improved with some new springs & shocks). But I know when I turn the key it’ll start and get me wherever I need to go. And for me, that’s what counts.
I looked at the numbers twice actually due to my shock and horror. I have no idea where your numbers for the low-rider edition XJ came from so here are the actual numbers from Allpar:
Approach Angle: 38º (97 XJ) versus 29.9º (2014 TH)
Departure Angle: 32º (97 XJ) versus 32.2º (2014 TH)
Breakover Angle: 24º (97 XJ) versus 22.9º (2014 TH)
Ground clearance: 10.2″ (97 XJ) versus 8.7″ (2014 TH)
The specs on the non-Trail Hawk Cherokees are too pitiful to mention but if you want to look here is the link: http://www.allpar.com/SUVs/jeep/2014-cherokee.html
Bottom line is that the top of the line, special edition off-road 2014 Cherokee can’t best or in some cases even come close to the specs of its 16 year old predecessor. Pretty sad considering the rest of the automotive market is light years ahead of where it was in 1997.
Despite your snark I’ll still pull ya out of a ditch if I see you on the trail…if your Cherokee even has recovery hooks that is :)
Keep in the mind that this version is the “off road” version of the Cherokee. I bet the XJ numbers aren’t for one with the upcountry suspension and the metal skid plates. Numbers are great but an independent suspension will offer no articulation, meaning it will prop one wheel up in the air and bring the opposite side closer to the ground, eating most of the ground clearance. Also the low point for the XJ was the diffs. Once you remember what side of the car they are on you gain another 7 inches of clearance or so by remembering that. As long as you get a wheel up on the obstacle your clearance stays the same (solid axle), an independent suspension will act like a hinge. Also exceeding the numbers quoted above often won’t cause anything to break on the XJ, or on any proper off road vehicle, good luck on the Cherokee. I think Outback’s and Foresters have similar numbers and no one seriously recommends taking them off road.
Transfer cases on Jeeps are pretty solid, don’t really hear about people breaking them, especially with stock power. Jeep auto transmissions on the other hand…. So yes I would rather have the transfer case. How many CV joints you think this new Cherokee has?
In addition to elom’s points, all these angles are fairly unimportant in practice, perhaps with the exception of the ramp angle. The low get is what really determines most of it, unless we’re talking about “sporting” off-roading, like boulder crawling. It all comes down to the difference between actual faux off-roading where you visit an off-roading area and never get anywhere, and the practical off-roading where you actually get somewhere and have to deliver something.
What is the benefit to setting up the low range like this? Does it save weight or can they not get the 9 speed short enough to fit a normal transfeer case behind it?
The 9-speed from ZF is barely longer than the typical 6-speed, as I mentioned above.
It wouldn’t be behind the engine, because I assume that this car has a transverse engine since it is based on the Dart. So by putting the low range in the diffs they are probably eliminating a LOT of complication of having to go from engine to transmission, to some sort of 90 degree turn to get to the transfer case then the front and rear diffs. This setup makes it just like any other FWD-based AWD setup, but lets you have a low range too. Clever! Will be interesting to see the technical details. Planetary gearsets are VERY simple devices, so I expect it will be reasonably robust and reliable.
Ah…I saw Cherokee and assumed RWD…silly me.
The Power Takeoff Unit itself has a 2 speed output on the Trailhawk models. I’m not sure where Derek got his information.
I think the Trailhawk looks spectacular. I was waiting for the Dart GT, but this new Cherokee has caught my new car lust. It’s kind of a Porsche Cayenne for the masses.
The light configuration and the grill reminds me of the Juke actually.
My first Jeep was a new 2001 XJ Cherokee.4.0L I6 w/4 spd auto.Solid front and rear axles with a limited slip in the rear diff.Empty at hwy speeds on cruise 23 1/2 mpg all day long.Off road it was an animal,plain and simple.
Second new jeep was a 2006 Liberty Limited CRD.The diesel,and the 5 spd MB auto were great.Mild off road it was terrible,and ended up being useless to my wife and I.
Third,and final jeep was a new 08 JK 2dr.3.8L V6/4 spd auto,3:73’s w/Limited slip.The single most off road capable production vehicle ever,and a complete and total pile of $hit.I kept it for a year and got rid of it.From all the recalls,and for electrical problems that should have had recalls,it just wasn’t worth keeping due to total unreliability.
I have had 3 Jeep products and watched the quality go right to hell,despite what they say now they are just junk on wheels.You know why? They have no competition in the off road segment.No incentive to build with quality and pride.They just ride the aging reputation,right into the ground,(pun intended)….
My cousin had a 2003 Jeep Liberty 3.7 liter 4×4 that was a pig on gas, but actually awesome off road and surprisingly fantastic on road, as well — it had this very stout chassis and absolutely no flex or bending, nor a single interior squeak or rattle over even the roughest roads. It had to be one of the tightest chassis’ (what’s plural for chassis?) I’ve ever experienced.
The transmission did emit a whine at highway speeds and was definitely geared for towing or climbing 24/7, even when one wasn’t using low range or off road, and the radio sucked. These are honestly the only faults I could find with it over the course of 10 days or so.
He drove the snot out of it, too, and ended up selling with well over 100,000 miles on it with only a minor repair under warranty and some recall work for (I think) the CV joints.
He let me take it on a excursion to the U.P. of Michigan, and I positively loved that vehicle.
I also had some good driving experiences with a round-face Liberty. I have no use for the Nitro-derived versions, but that first-gen was a surprisingly nice drive. Good power, and pretty comfortable for long hauls on the highway. It was a gas sucking pig, but no worse than my old Pathfinder. 19-25, city/highway, give or take. Stock clearance is too low for anything resembling actual off-roading.
The old XJ is still about a million times tougher and more capable offroad. And I think the point that some of these folks are missing is that a Jeep should be tough as nails. Maybe not the most reliable, definitely not the most refined, but tough. Right out of the box they’re a capable offroader. Don’t get me wrong–I’d just as soon cut off both big toes as buy a Jeep (I’ll stick with my Hardbody Nissans)–but the XJ was a beast. The early 2-doors were pretty cool.
This new Cherokee is a bad joke, that does nothing more than throw another (yawn) CUV in a market that’s already horribly overcrowded. I don’t have beef with the way it looks, just that it’s not a Jeep. And I hope no one’s fooling themselves thinking this thing will do much more than your garden-variety RAV4 or CRV. Their idea of “offroad” for this new Cherokee is a half-mile of gravel driveway, IMHO.
And all it has to do to be a success is slice away a healthy chunk of sales from RAV4 & CRV. That’s where the money is to be made. Rock crawlers and trail riders will be directed to the Wrangler.
@noxious – You’re absolutely correct. The Nitro based Liberty is a total POS compared to the prior generation. The Nitro based one isn’t even a good VEHICLE, let alone a good Jeep.
I don’t know much about hardcore off-roading, but you’re definitely correct that the previous generation Liberty would have to be lifted (compared to stock setup) to do any serious boulder crawling, and it would need the additional skidplate protection, as would most vehicles even in its class (I don’t think even the Wrangler has sufficient skidplate protection for rock crawling standard).
The nice thing about the previous Liberty is that is was about 3x as refined on pavement as the Wrangler, while probably being 70% as capable off the pavement (all things considered). A lot of that probably had to do with the structure itself, even compared to a hardtop Wrangler, because the Liberty was quite rigid and seemed like it was made of titanium (I think the Toledo Assembly plant had just acquired some sort of brand new automated laser weld system from Austria that was first used on the prior Liberty), and a lot of it had to do with the steering feel, which was better than most cars I have driven (heavy but consistent effort steering, with a tight turn radius).
@jp – I agree with you. With fuel prices where they are at, the fat part of the sales curve for pretty much all small and midsized SUVs/CUVs are and will have to continue to be increasingly fuel efficient.
That ’03 Liberty felt like a literal bank vault compared to the CRV, RAV-4, Equinox, Escape and Santa Fe, though. For people like myself, I’d be tempted to pick it for that reason despite the extra fuel costs, because I detest vehicles that feel insubstantial and tinny.
I just adopted a really ugly, stupid looking dog. That said, he’s well behaved and the right size and temperament for a family with two kids under 4 years old. I just have to stop looking him in the eyes (as they point in different directions).
I think the Cherokee’s kinda like that.
I’m attempting to make sense of the drivetrain you’re describing.
“No t-case” can’t quite be right, as you need something to split power front-to-back. So…more like “no low-range gearset in t-case”…which makes sense because this is (I’m assuming) a transverse FWD-type front transaxle with a drive shaft poking out the back.
“Low range in diffs”…hmmm…so, in the front transaxle/t-case/diff, there’s a _second_ planetary gearset to do low-range, plus an additional gearset in the rear diff to do low range.
That’s entirely possible, but as an engineer (or someone with common sense) it seems waaaaaaaay too complicated, especially in a vehicle that’s already got a 9-speed tranny. You could have _two_ crawler gears in there (say, 10:1 and 5:1) and still have more speeds that most on the market.
All that said, hooray for a locking rear diff, if it’s actually a real locker (and not brake-based).
I’m waiting on a tech briefing from Jeep…stay tuned.
The planetary gear for the low-range is before the center diff if the pre-release briefing on allpar is right:
www dot allpar dot com/SUVs/jeep/specifications/cherokee-14 dot html
The power transfer unit is built into the back of the transmission, which is why it’s not considered a separate transfer case.
So it’s an integrated transaxle + t-case + range box.
Read the presser on AB (they’re good for that, for sure) and the specs are actually pretty darn good for a midsize SUV. In full butch spec Trailhawk spec, it would tow my Falcon and go down any trail The Missus would let me with the kids on-board.
But what’s it based off of?
Fiat has no knowledge of real offroad vehicle, obviously we’re not expecting much in terms of offroad prowess, it is still afterall killed by no clearence and no approach/departure angles.
But my concern is the reliability of something that’s seemingly not common, being done by two(or now one, fiat/chrysler) companies who you would not want trying new things.
It’s also strange they would even attempt to try giving it anything offroad, since afterall it is a CUV, and no one who buys it will ever actually venture off the beaten path, so it’s seems a waste of research time and money.
Unless their in it for the “shiny button” factor
“Fiat has no knowledge of real offroad vehicle”
Don’t ask Panda 4×4 drivers…
Oh, who are you kidding?
A little car that uses friction to engage the rear wheels?
You can’t possible make that argument with a straight face.
“Taking to the off-road section of Fiat’s test track at Balocco, the Panda went basically everywhere a Jeep Grand Cherokee could go. It climbed and traversed impossible slopes, restarted on slippery surfaces and presented such a range of competence you wonder why people bother with vast, dipsomaniac SUVs.”
From the Daily Telegraph last November. No, it’s not a 4200 lb Wrangler, more the size of the original jeep – lightness and narrowness has its rewards.
My understanding is that the Panda 4×4’s abilities are well-known among people who actually need to use them in real world off-road conditions, as opposed to people who do it for sport and look down upon something that doesn’t meet their predetermined checkboxes.
Real world conditions that require 4×4 would be a flood, natural disaster such as a hurricane/ tornado and maybe snow to some people.
All of which need at least a little ground clearence, be it water, from getting into the cabin, being able to pull fallen trees/transverse over them, and being able to not get bottomed out in a snow drift.
I mean ATV’s have more ground clearence then that and a far shorter wheelbase to deal with.
Even if it had 3 locking diffs ( including a center diff) it still couldn’t keep up.
The first time you drive through where someone with a real offroad vehicle has driven, your stuck, street tires 155/80/R13 are smaller then most family sedans
WMBA,
JGC isn’t the same landmark vehicle it was when it was first introduced, sure the technology is good and the vehicle is a great street vehicle, but it is no longer a offroad oriented vehicle
Although it’s long since had a frame, lacking this puts it at a major disadvantage as you lose customization you would otherwise have, and it make the vehicle weaker and more prone to being totaled in an accident. It has plastic bumper, although no one intends to ram into a tree for the hell of it, anything can happen, and for both of these vehicles are looking at a bumper replacement for doing anything more then a gravel driveway.
It is nothing like the original jeep, the jeep weighed far less, had strong steel bumpers, had 2 solid axles, a transfer case, and appropriately sized tires. you also didn’t worry about scratching the hell out of it because they were cheap and replacement parts were cheaper.
Not saying it’s all bad, but making a point that trying to sell a vehicle to a specific demographic that has no use for such a vehicle is pointless, the actual demographic will never use the system and most likely will have no idea how to work it.
“Real world conditions that require 4×4 would be a flood, natural disaster such as a hurricane/ tornado and maybe snow to some people.”
I wasn’t talking about real first world problems, but rather actual real world off-road conditions in the developing world. Things that aren’t voluntary.
“obviously we’re not expecting much in terms of offroad prowess, it is still afterall killed by no clearence and no approach/departure angles.”
You’re talking out of your hat on this one.
If the vehicle being compared to is the XJ Cherokee, the new KL has better approach and departure angles as well as more ground clearance. Read up on it, the specs are available.
Sounds like you’re just dead set on hating on it because it doesn’t match the predetermined mold of what you think a 4×4 should be.
It’s a 2 speed PTU. So with a 9 speed transmission and 2 speed PTU, by bicycle logic it’s an 18 speed! Of course you won’t be able to use 9 speeds in low range, but it’s a funny thought.
Looks like the son of a VW Touareg and a Volvo XC60.
It´s quite handsome and certainly *not* ugly.
I’ll say one nice thing, the interior looks very attractive.
Man that thing is butt-ugly. I thought the Juke was bad….
I bet if they’d put a vacuum cleaner in it everybody would love it.
+1
I said it before, and I’ll repeat it a million times:
This Cherokee will be a hit.
If they price it right, it’s gonna be everywhere. Get used to the look. I also believe this Cherokee will be key in Jeep’s expansion into the foreign markets. It’s relative quirkiness and well-done interior will cement this X-Over’s success.
I clearly remember when the 2007 Honda CR-V debuted. There were howls everywhere about the ugly front grille with the “fat bottom lip”. Pronouncements of: “Honda has really screwed the pooch with their cash cow SUV!!!!”.
History shows it was just the opposite.
Get ready for history to repeat.
+1
“If they price it right, it’s gonna be everywhere. Get used to the look. I also believe this Cherokee will be key in Jeep’s expansion into the foreign markets. It’s relative quirkiness and well-done interior will cement this X-Over’s success.”
Absolutely. I showed this to Mrs. Monty, and her reaction was totally opposite to my expectations. She loves the styling. For a woman who is only interested in two-door coupes with standards, it was disconcerting that this SUV hit all the right buttons. She actually confessed to being interested enough to take it for a future test drive. She couldn’t care less about it’s off-road prowess, only that it’s got enough safety nannies, AWD for the winter, and enough cupholders and cubbies for all of her accouterments.
I bet Jeep ends up with a runaway hit with this iteration of a classic.
Gentlemen, get over it. Jeep isn’t building vehicles for gearheads, Jeep is building for the car buying public that couldn’t tell a transfer case from a transaxle.
All the comments about drivetrains and transmissions are impressive, and humbling – I was ready to take Derek’s word ;)
I’m just glad to see the return of decent-sized passenger windows.
PS: Ford called and wants its taillights back.
I’ll add my vote to this is going to be a hit, like it or not.
I don’t think it is that bad looking at all. I actually kind of like it. What I don’t like is that it seems to be loaded to the gills with so many damn electric gee-gaws and touch screens that it instantly turns me off. Another case of the poverty spec base model should be more enough for any sane individual.
It is better looking than the new Escape, that is for sure.
This vehicle blows my mind. When I first saw the shots, I thought it was the ugliest design in years… now I have no idea. It is growing on me. I am one that LOVED the look of the VehiCROSS, and as someone else mentioned, this has a lot of that in the front design, but it has a lot of ugly in the front too… I even covered the slit headlights with my hands on one of the front shots, and it looked pretty good. The red/black paintjob (with black accents) does wonders. If this gets a mid cycle refresh and it gets more traditional headlights and that bulge in the grill is toned down, then maybe it will be a handsome SUV… but then again it will also look like everything else! grrrrr
I have a fist generation Liberty (KJ) in my garage and I will not be trading it in for THAT. Boy, the front end is ugly, like original Compass ugly. Yuck!
It needs an SRT Off-Road version with a 5.7L Hemi. A car that small with an engine that big is going to be a rocket.
Why would Jeep even pretend this mall cruiser would ever intentionally wander off road? The only “terrain” any of these will see is snowy and icy roads where anything with 4WD and meaty tires would do fine.
I understand that Berlusconi wants to FIATify every Chrysler (except for RAM), but this European pastry is a joke compared to greats like the CJ and Grand Wagoneer.
@FJ60LandCruiser
What’s wrong with the Italians wanting to do that?
I suppose its okay for US corporations to have US manufacturing?
Very lop sided argument, Chrysler screwed up and is now controlled by an overseas group. At least the company is still operating creating jobs in the US.
That’s life, move on.
Ever seen a showroom stock CJ or Wagoneer in the dirt? Open diffs, 30″ tires, and carbs that won’t run at an angle make for pretty lousy performance.
Sure, this Chero isn’t going to conquer the Tank Trap at Hollister Hills SVRA, but there’s no reason to believe it can’t hold its own on a typical rutted muddy trail on the way to somewhere scenic.
I think what most people are missing is that while it may not be as capable as the old XJ Cherokee, it will be the most capable vehicle in it’s segment. In order for Jeep to survive, they need to build something other than the Wrangler. As long as Jeep ensures that each product is the most capable vehicle in it’s respective segment, I think that meets the spirt of what Jeep is all about.
I happen to own two TJ (1997-2006) series Wranglers and I’m totally fine with this vehicle. Would I buy one? No. I don’t need a people hauler, and if I did, I’d prefer a car. Do I like the styling? Not particularly, but then I’m not the target market.
@Wheeljack
“I think what most people are missing is that while it may not be as capable as the old XJ Cherokee, it will be the most capable vehicle in it’s segment.”
That’s a very big statement. This may be the case in the US, but what about the rest of the globe that represents at least another 60 million vehicle sales?
Jeep make capable 4x4s (when they aren’t broken) but believe me there are other 4x4s that are as good if not better outside of the US.
This is a mass market vehicle, so it has to appeal to as many as possible.
By segment, I’m defining that as car-based unibody CUVs. Think Toyota RAV4, Honda CRV, Ford Escape, Hyundai Sante Fe, Kia Sportage, Chevy Equinox, etc. Amongst those vehicles, it is without a doubt the most capable 4×4.
I’ll buy one. The nose is much less offensive in the real pictures. Like everything else. How they managed to fit in low range but it is there. Also a rear locker is a wonderful feature.
People say jeep isn’t innovative enough. Well guess what they just put low range in a traverse awd. Innovation at its best.
I went out to Moab Utah this past week to see some Jeeps and do off-roading and saw the Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk up close. It looks really good, I mean REALLY GOOD, in person. I think people should reserve opinions until they see it for themselves and not just slam it from pictures.