With the first month of 2014 sales nearly wrapped up, we’ll soon get our first look at how the Jeep Cherokee has fared, following the initial shipment of delayed units. Much has been made of the Cherokee selling 10,000 units in November and 15,000 units in December: it was a great storyline for Chrysler to promote in the run-up to NAIAS, and one for the hometown media (in both Detroit and Toledo) to rally around. Left out of the cheerleading was the fact that these figures accounted for the 25,000 units reportedly sent to dealers in one fell swoop. Can you say “pent up demand”?
But even if the Cherokee continued to sell at that pace – say, 15,000 units per month as an optimistic projection, where would that place it in the larger picture of the small crossover segment?
Small crossovers may not be popular with enthusiasts, but it’s impossible to deny how important this is to the industry at large. In 2013, five of the top 10 best selling SUVs in America were small crossovers, while the Honda CR-V and Ford Escape (the top selling small crossovers) were the 8th and 10th best selling vehicles in America. Together, those two made up just under 1/3rd of the segment’s volume. Add in the third place Chevolet Equinox and fourth place Toyota RAV4 and you have 57 percent of the segment represented in just four nameplates.
The graph above represents the uneven distribution of the segment’s sales, with the top four nameplates sitting comfortable, while a number of small players compete for scraps at the bottom of the graph. This isn’t unique in the market either – Juan Barnett’s analysis of the midsize market shows a somewhat similar distribution of nameplates clustered at the top and bottom. Like the midsize segment, the small crossover category is a crowded one, and the addition of the Cherokee just adds to the competition.
Assuming the 15,000 unit pace holds through 2014, that would give the Cherokee 180,000 units at year end, placing it above the Nissan Rogue (which sells roughly 160,000 units) but below the RAV4. In that context, the 15,000 unit per month figure being bandied about is far less impressive, but it’s important to note a couple things.
The Toldeo, Ohio factory that builds the Cherokee is capacity limited to about 250,000 Cherokees per year. Even running flat out, Jeep wouldn’t be able to catch the CR-V or Escape. Considering that some of the 250,000 units will go to Canada and other global markets, 180,000 is a respectable number. Even more significant is what the Cherokee will do for the Jeep brand compared to the Liberty (as demonstrated in the chart below).
The comparison with the Rogue will be an interesting one. In the same way that the 200 should sell at the level of the Optima, Malibu or Sonata, the Cherokee and Rogue will likely inhabit the same stratosphere in the segment. The new Rogue has also undergone Nissan’s patented process of making cars suitably bland for American tastes, through their expanded dealer network. Similar to the Altima’s gradual climb through the midsize ranks, the combined capacity for 180,000 units of the Rogue (100,000 in Smyrna, Tennessee and 80,000 at the Renault-Nissan facility in Korea), combined with additional units of the Rogue Select (which Nissan will likely not break out from Rogue sales) should enable to Rogue to post higher sales figures by the end of 2014. On the other hand, don’t expect things to change at the top.
As long as the Cherokee avoids future disasters like the start-up issues I’m sure it will do well. It’s one of the few in it’s segment that offers a V6. It also has a superior AWD/4×4 system, best in segment
And the best infotainment.
And the best looks.
And the best powertrain.
Best Looks?!
Its a fine mechanical and infotainment package in a very…..polarizing skin.
I fall on the “its ugly” side of things, and wouldn’t be caught dead buying one, but good for Chrysler for creating a winner.
I actually find it quite pleasing.
I can see why someone would hate it *if they were a Jeep person* and emotionally attached to Traditional Jeep Styling Cues.
You clearly haven’t seen one with the lousy 16″ painted steel 5-lugs leftover from the ’02 Liberty portfolio…
Base CR-V has the lousy wheels. That’s why the call them “base models.”
There’s no arguing the Cherokee has the best powertrain, and once you’ve seen one in person a few times, the looks really grow on you. I was on the fence initially, but now I can see how some would think it looks great. Definitely unique, at least on the front end, a very “baby brother to the Grand Cherokee” (as it should be) side profile and a rather slick rear end.
Not to be racist, but that Cherokee belongs in a smoke filled opium den.
Allow me to channel my inner D. Kreindler: the Cherokee’s 24.8 cu ft cargo space (with seats up) will cost it dearly in sales compared to the CRV’s 37, Rogue’s 34, and the up and coming Forester’s 34. I hear the Forester has one of the industry’s shortest days-on-the-lot numbers. The Escape has 29cu ft and still does very well, and I think many people like the classy looks and quiet/composed ride and are willing to sacrifice some space. But 24.8 Cu Ft is just too little. That’s very close my family’s 2007 Fit and actually less than our old 1990 Civic Wagon (27 cu ft), both MUCH smaller cars than this Cherokee.
I do root for the Cherokee’s success strictly in terms of putting more people to work at factories, but I can’t say I care for it as a car I’d want to drive myself. I can see the Cherokee also underperforming in real world mileage ala Equinox/Terrain, another EPA-test queen that weighs 4000lbs.
“Inner Kreindler” sounds like a series.
The Escape has 34.3 cu ft. My C-Max has basically the same cargo space as the Cherokee and it has a bunch of batteries back there.
Right you are, I accidentally was looking at the 2012 Escape numbers, the old boxy one. I think this just drives the point home then, all of the Cherokee’s competitor’s have 33+, 25 cu ft is significantly smaller.
You are dead on about the cargo, which is something I noted in my review. I had the pleasure of driving a CR-V and Santa Fe in my college years and whatever dynamic flaws they had, they were great haulers.
It’s only a matter of time before they shoot themselves in the foot (tires)
The Jeep does have more rear legroom than most of the other CUVs. It seems like it traded cargo area for additional legroom. The problem is that all the other CUVs seem to have quite a lot of rear legroom anyway. Unless the Cherokee has sliding rear seats to open up more space in the back, that extra legroom seems useless unless you have 4 people that are all 6’6″ riding in it regularly.
+1 for the crap mileage of the Equinox/Terrain.
Unsurprisingly, the V6 in each model posts better than real world EPA figures on various Equinox/Terrain forums, although to be fair 24 MPG with the 3.6 and 6 speed is a conservative figure.
I have yet to get more than 27 MPG, try as I might. Living in the southern Green Bay area, thankfully much of my day to day travel can be achieved on highways in the 45-55 MPH range, where the engine is working less hard, and even making it a point to take all of these lower speed routes, cruise faithfully enabled, and the Eco button permanently on, my typical real-world economy is 24-25 MPG, comprised of 70-80% highway.
Yup. I have a Forester and would seriously consider the Cherokee as a replacement because it has the segment-unique combination of a V6 and a top-notch AWD system. But the poor cargo capacity is probably a deal-breaker. If I could live with that little capacity, I’d skip the crossover segment altogether and get a smaller, nimbler car.
This vehicle compares to a Hyundai Tucson if you consider Cargo. And how many families buy a car like that and don’t need cargo? In no way this is in the CRV, RAV4, CX5, Santa Fe League.
If I didn’ the need a trunk, I’d buy a Smart, 500, Mini or Porsche…. People who buy CRV are Minivan people who want something cooler looking but still with utility. This cargo volume is not.
And no one in the target audience cares about AWD and if it is better off road. Real off readers (all 3 of them that buy new cars) wouldn’t want to be seen in an CUV with fish mouth or whatever that is.
>>It also has a superior AWD/4×4 system, best in segment<<
But does the market care? Rock crawlers buy real jeeps – they know this is a Dart underneath.
99% of this market want family utility and performance in ice and snow. The best awd cuvs in the later – according to tests – historically have been other brands. And we know the Jeep's family utility isn't the best either.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't do well. Many buy the Jeep image, as they do BMW or Land Rover, w/o ever intending to test the boundaries of “superior” design.
If they are capacity limited to around 180000 for the US market, then there is the potential for them to not have to lavish incentives to shift the product. It could be quite profitable for them, while at the same time provide a meaningful volume bump from the Liberty.
I guess you’re correct, but I never really think of the Rogue unless I see one. Then it’s a CVT equipped,small, cheap Murano for the beige crowd on a budget. Most are beige. If I had a spotless mind and the Compass didn’t exist, the Cherokee is already perceived as tougher than a Rogue by just being a Jeep, but not by being a smaller Grand Cherokee.
“…but I never really think of the Rogue unless I see one.”
The Rogue has its advantages. For instance, it can jump on top of a train. Useful for a great many situations. So hopefully, when you’re in traffic, and a train track is nearby, you’ll think of the Rogue and how it could extricate you from the situation.
I hate that commercial. It’s almost as bad as the Camry being “grounded to the ground” and “having stuff guys like, like rims and sleekness of the body”.
Don’t forget the Rogue can ram a cop car multiple times and keep on truckin’.
@cargogh
That same CVT idealogy is what’s preventing me from one day owning an Infiniti JX35.
I’m curious – have you driven various types of CVTs? It took me all of an hour to get used to mine and now it’s a non-issue. I have paddle shifters if I wanted to feign ‘shifting’ but that novelty wore off after the 2nd useage….
I drove a friend’s ’14 Accord and that CVT is pretty dynamic….
It’s difficult for me to read the first chart. The CRV, Forrester, RAV4, Equinox and CX5 have the same color lines. Maybe you could have the labels point to the actual line?
A good practice for charts is to vary the line style (e.g., solid, dashed) to help distinguish data.
Also, the latest excel defaults create terrible looking charts as they are soft, fuzzy, and low-contrast.
im sorry but those figures are absolutely terrible. esp the first one. i cannot tell which lines belong to which models, it is way too busy. whoever made that figure needs to go back to school.
the second one is better but only because it has 4 lines. the colors should be more distinguishable.
You need to go back to school so you can afford a monitor that isn’t prehistoric. No issues here.
I was wondering the same, the graphs are perfectly clear to me
The first, third, fourth, and fifth places all appear to be the same purple even after the graph is maximized, and my monitor costs more than your mom.
LOL. First TTAC laugh of today.
I’m having the same problem. The colour coding didn’t work for me.
My mind just associated the colors in order. The colors do look the same.
Has the itching started yet?
Not more than my mom AFTER the pace maker….
Agreed.
I’d have gone with only the top performers (say, those that had at least one year around/above 100K) itemized/graphed and have the ones clustered at the bottom left out, since one would hope that Jeep is gunning for better than Sportage numbers, right?
Alternately, if you just have to have them all, try a slightly larger column presentation with the axes flipped (each model gets 1 set of 4 columns for each year being represented and put the legend on the bottom).
x3 on that chart. The colors are far too close in color to tell them apart; please re-post, perhaps with arrows superimposed on top to point the legend to the lines.
X4 – but I think the easiest thing to do would be to order the list as they appear at the end point for 2013 on the chart. It looks like that’s how it started with CRV and Escape, then sort of gets jumbled up.
“Pent up demand” for a product that never existed before? TTAC continues to have a credibility stake in dissing Chrysler and other American manufacturers.
Having “Want To Save Gas? Don’t Buy American – Announcing The True Heroes And True Villains At The Pump” in the toolbar implying that American manufacturers are villains when they really just depend on trucks and SUV’s more which actually beat their comparable JapanInc truck and SUIV competitors in gas mileage certainly hurts TTAC’s credibility.
I would agree that there was some pent up demand, and while this platform is new to Jeep, the Cherokee name is not. I’m sure that many of the first buyers were Jeep enthusiats familiar with the original Cherokee.
Does the Cherokee need to beat the Rav4 or for that matter the CRV and Escape? If they sell 150000 I’m sure it will be profitable and that’s more important.
I agree. 150000+ units seems like plenty to be happy about for Chrysler. I hope they do it.
Agreed.
There is no way the Cherokee will come anywhere close to the CR-V in terms of volume, but profitably selling a reasonable volume without relying on huge incentives to move them would be a big win, and would help to slowly build some credibility for Jeep in this space.
Agreed.
Also, Derek seems to assume that all Cherokee sales will be incremental to the category. If the Cherokee maintains its present pace, sales will be around 10,000 units/month above the Liberty. If those sales simply replace sales by competitive CUVs, the real question may be which brands will lose from this?
This is a perfect example of the Pareto principle.
Pareto or Peter principle? Trying to figure out if this is a Malapropism.
Pareto. The 20-80 rule. 20% of the companies, have 80% of the market.
Although in this case, it would be a modified Pareto. Around 25% of the companies have got 75% of the market.
I think the bottom chart is more important, how well it does against the old liberty. Yes it would be nice to play in the big leagues but a this point any model running much over 100k units a year is a big win for fiat-chrysler.
I know that Chrysler withheld the Cherokee until the software programming glitches could be ironed out, but maybe this is inadvertently a good strategy to follow (not the software glitches). Delay the sale to the public until there is a sufficient number of units in stock at the dealerships when the ad campaign kicks in at full force. Usually, the automakers go gangbusters with the advertising when the production has just kicked off, and the dealerships have few models in stock to actually sell when people come in to inspect the new models. I know that when the dealership near me finally received their allocation of Cherokees, they must have gotten at least 35 units in, in a variety of trims and colors, so it was easy for a customer to find one they might like right away, without having to wait for more production. Maybe this is the way to go in the future.
It’s not something automakers want to do on purpose. Storing 25,000 unsold vehicles incurs immense costs and is a logistical nightmare.
It is. But good on them for doing it.
The new Jeep Cherokee will be the America’s best-selling Fiat-based Crossover Vehicle that has the face of a catfish. http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/compress/2005/437/jpeg/26m.jpg
All I see is a row of urinals.
That’s getting old already.
I suppose they could get rid of the urinals and put on some attractive head lights, but then it would just look like a CR-V with RAV4 tail lights.
Exactly. Polarizing styling can be dangerous (think Joker-grin Mazdas), but there’s no denying that the new Cherokee is instantly identifiable (from the front, anyway) and won’t be mistaken for anything else (except maybe a Nissan).
It will be interesting to see if the ‘urinal face’ grille has legs.
Catfish? That honor belongs exclusively to the 1996 Taurus.
Compared to the Liberty that it replaces, this is already a home run.
Sharing a platform with volume passenger cars helps with recovering the costs, which is an improvement for the bottom line.
On the whole, this is a significant step up from before. Borrowing from the Grand Cherokee’s styling cues was the right approach.
Good to see the CX-5 breaking free of the bottom feeders. And that number has been production limited for the most part.
I downloaded crossovergraph1.jpg and picked the color values.
CR-V ….. 105 104 138
Forester . 104 102 149
Equinox . 101 104 149
RAV4 ….. 100 105 149
Honestly they are next to identical.
And now we know another color in which the Cherokee doesn’t work. Works about as well as that GOLD Journey back there.
I’ve been seeing more and more of these around my neighborhood. For a couple of (soon to be) empty nesters, this is a great little ride. Although, with my inclination for long bike rides and my wife’ DIY streak, I think there’s enough room in there to satisfy those needs. I will have to check one out at the car show next month…
Which line is for the Tiguan and which is for the Compass?
Graphs that depend upon tiny differences in colors/shades drive me nuts.
Seems to me this vehicle is going to be a win for Chrysler if it gives them MORE market share with a vehicle they don’t have to give away. It doesn’t necessarily NEED to be the top seller. Not sure why the tone here was so negative…
Because this is The Best and The Brightest. They’re not happy unless their slamming a car.
And, how dare they give the name Cherokee to something that doesn’t lend itself to 35″ wheels and 8″ lift kits.
Finally, the only Cherokee they buy would be a first generation one. Because you can’t buy them used. This model, for awhile, has to be bought new, with all that wicked depreciation. Let it get 3-5 years old and opinions will suddenly become much kinder, because you’ll be able to buy one much cheaper used.
Not sure many TTACers would be willing to buy one used… what will that 9 speed be like 5 years and 60k miles down the road? How will the U-connect fare?
Those old XJs had an anvil of an Aisin automatic transmission: dead nuts reliable. Not to mention the hallowed 4.0L OHV I6. Leaf spring rear end, solid axles all around, simple u joints up front. Craigslist is chock full of these things with over 200k miles. Will there be dirt cheap Trailhawks on craigslist with 150k miles in 10 years, ready to rip down fire roads for another 100k? I kind of doubt it.
I test drove a 5spd 1996 once, oh man it makes you feel alive. Working the heavy shifter and clutch, fighting to stay in your lane as the worn steering rack lets the truck wander all over at anything over 40 mph. Makes my 4runner feel like a soccer mom’s highlander.
The trailhawk may be capable at a fancy show and tell for journalists, I can’t imagine what its suspension and underbody would look like if it were to actually be used like that with any regularity. It is merely an exercise in oneupmanship “hey see those orange tow hooks, yeah mine’s a trailhawk with the locking diff.”
Precisely. The new Cherokee is a throw-away compact car in drag that has little in common with the XJ. Reputations are not built on vehicles like this.
Having been a used 1992 Jeep Wrangler owner for a brief time a few years ago, and a 1968 Jeep Commando C-101 owner in the mid-70s, I’m very suspicious of owning a Jeep again.
Of course, they were old when I bought them, but my suspicions about what “Jeep” stands for – “Just Empty Every Pocket” – would raise its ugly head if I bought one again, new or used!
For Chrysler’s sake, I hope I’m wrong!
Although not a real fan of SUV/CUVs, certain ones do prove their mettle with superior reliability and most with their utility. Our old 2002 CR-V has proven its worth a hundred-fold.
If sales in this segment doesn’t expand who loses volume if the Cherokee does realize increased sales?
Revised graph added. Is this better?
The darker colors probably help, in order to contrast with the white background.
I didn’t have a problem with the chart, as it communicates the basic points that it needed to communicate: (a) the space is owned by a few dominant players, which own both the volume and much of the growth rate, and (b) it’s crowded with a bunch of mediocre performers who are fighting over the crumbs. Those who are trying to use the chart to obtain exact sales figures for each model are missing the point.
Thank you. I thought that was clearly communicated in the body of the article.
Much better, thanks, Derek.
I will say they this.
MUCH MUCH MUCH better looking in person. Neighbor just bought one, paid around $28K so not poverty spec but not loaded out by any means. It is in black, which favors the skin.
This vehicle photographs horribly – if you haven’t seen one in real life reserve judgment.
I would put the Chevy Impala and new Corolla in the same camp. Both much better looking in person (at least in LT/LTZ trim and S trim respectively)
I have seen it in person – better than the photos, but still not convinced. If it were a different marque it may be OK, but it’s a Jeep. This thing needs a brushguard to hide the ugly and the shame that is the front end. They should have done a case study on the Subaru Tribeca – great vehicle, the ugly shone through though, eventually killing sales. Compass is an OK car (too many corners cut, IMHO) that pretends to be a jeep – Patriot is a decent CUV (not living quite up to its potential)… The new Cherokee will be polarizing and keep it out of the beloved Jeep community – much of the strength in the brand.
For what it’s worth, the Tribeca is also shockingly tight inside for its price and exterior bulk. I mean, I know it’s supposed to be a 7-seater, but that middle row is still a little snug slid as far back as possible (which renders the 3rd row useless). That can’t have helped it, nor could the Outback’s growth spurt.
Jeezus! Is that actually a real vehicle that they plan to sell? I thought it was some kind of wacko concept car.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but ugly like that is just in your face.
I thought the exact same thing until I saw a few at the car show. They look MUCH better in person than they do in photos.
That is your opinion. The Row-of-Urinals-Cherokee I saw while Christmas shopping was every bit as ugly as it is in photos.
I think they look great in person. I too was on the fence from the pictures.
So good for Chrysler, 150K a year or so should be a nice earner. Having had the latest RAV4 for a rental a couple times, all I can say is it is the Camry of small CUVs. BLECH. The previous one I loved too! Even talked my roommate into buying a 2010.
Every new instrument panel Toyota releases is uglier than the last. I can’t see how they can keep doing it!
I test drove a ’13 Rav4 Limited last week. Considering my mom has a ’10 V6 Limited and my SIL has an ’11 I4 Base, I have a decent amount of experience with that generation Rav. My wife and I both really liked the new Rav. The ride was nice, great interior space, it swallowed up the convertible rear facing car seat leaving ample leg room in front. The instrument panel was much nicer to the touch, especially compared to the previous Rav which was really lacking there. The only thing I didn’t like was the screen resolution on the standard touchscreen, but that is apparently resolved with the upgraded JBL radio. The power liftgate was a nice feature, too. We liked it enough that I believe we’re going to replace our 4Runner and Prius v with it to open up garage space for an MX-5/FR-S/BRZ/e36 M3/etc for me without my wife having to give up her beloved MINI.
Quentin – did you try a CX5? Comparable cargo space but with the 40:20:40 seats you can carry long things AND four people, unlike RAV4 and CRV.
My 4Runner has a similar feature but I can count on one hand when I’ve used it. I’ll miss the roll down tailgate glass more than the seat configuration. Plus, it is just the wife, the baby, and myself with no plans for more kids. The “diff lock” is a nice feature that a lot of the CUVs don’t come with. It has been very useful in my family’s Ravs. I like the new Mazdas (the 6 in particular is fantastic). I’m not sure I’m ready to jump ship from Toyota yet when we’ve been so pleased with the ones we have. According the true delta, the ravs have been very reliable right out of the gate. Always a good sign.
Back to cargo capacity for a second. Cherokee’s front seat folds forward, I think. Do the others as well? That feature opens up considerable space to carrying awkward, bulky objects–as from Big Box home improvement stores and large musical instruments.
Hardly what the target audience needs.. trunk space for stroller and all the other kid and/or activity stuff is important. Lonely musicians hardly are the new CUV buyers.
I recently cross-shopped Cx5, RAV4 and ended up with a CRV.Also looked at Tucson which has cargo volume like this Jeep. Totally crossed it off my list for that reason as I can’t imagine giving up 30% Cargo. If you compare Santa Fe with similar Cargo, Honda actually is cheaper than Hyundai. Go figure..
Who is the target market for CUVs? I always think women with a dog or maybe one child. Tall ride height and room to carry larger objects. The styling seems too polarizing for its market segment.
Target market for CUVs? Roughly…
7/8 passenger CUV’s (Explorer, Acadia, etc)= former full size BOF SUV owners + former minivan owners
5 passenger CUV’s (the segment that Derek has here)= former smaller BOF SUV owners (Trailblazer etc) + former full size car buyers + a few minivan people + a few mid size car people.
As sales dropped in BOF SUV’s, mid size BOF SUV’s, minivans, and full size cars sales of CUV’s have skyrocketed.
…and people who miss stationwagons…
Soccer moms who can’t be seen in a minivan and old folks with creaky knees who can’t bend down to enter a car.
Autoblog podcast just gave the Cherokee a fantastic review saying the driving experience is excellent and a very high quality vehicle overall. A solid product with great driving characteristics.
If you want kind of a minivan, Dodge makes a real minivan that is quite price competitive with a CRV or RAV4.
Chrysler will get a longer version of a this vehicle to replace the Journey for you appliance fans.
Really? I can’t imagine it would be too much longer. The CUSW platform isn’t all that stretchable. The biggest the prospective Chrysler SUV could be is probably the size of the Murano/Edge/Venza…
If they can make the present Journey out of the Mits Lancer platform, I bet they can make a Journey replacement out of a Dart especially since this proposed vehicle is on Marchionne’s 5 year roadmap which has been accurate for Chrysler, not so much for Alfa Romeo, yet. The Cherokee and the Dart share a 106″ wheelbase while the new 200 has a 108″ wheelbase and is 10″ longer overall length, so there’s room for growth.
For as maligned a vehicle as the Cherokee was, I see a ton of them on the road already. I personally don’t think they look that bad at all, especially in the darker colors.
Saw it at the Houston car show last night, it’s pretty nice and about the right size for me and I’m not a lover of SUVs. In all black the front end details are kind of lost. People were checking it out so it might sell well.