Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Chrysler Unveils The 2014 Jeep Cherokee  
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

2014 Jeep Cherokee


Chrysler unveiled the brand new Jeep Cherokee yesterday, providing the above official Jeep photo. The new Cherokee replaces the existing Jeep Liberty and will be built at the Toledo (Ohio) Assembly "North" plant. The Cherokee is scheduled to go into production in May.

The automaker released few technical details today in revealing the name, but said the Cherokee will begin arriving in dealerships in the third quarter of 2013. The styling of the new Cherokee has definitely received mixed reviews from the press. I personally think that it's fresh and appealing, as opposed to the traditional boxy styling of most recent Jeeps. Some people have said the front styling reminds them of the Nissan Juke, which I think is rather harsh! The platform is based on a revised version of the Dodge Dart (nee Alfa Romeo) architecture, and will be sold in both front-wheel drive and all wheel drive version (like the current Jeep Patriot/Compass),

Cherokee will be powered by a 3.2-liter V-6 engine based on Chrysler's excellent 3.6-liter Pentastar engine, as well as an all-new 9-speed front-wheel-drive automatic transmission. The new Cherokee will be an international product, and is to be sold in Europe (through Fiat dealerships) and Asia as well as North America. The new-generation Cherokee will also offer a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder engine from the Dodge Dart, and a 1.4 liter turbocharged 4 cylinder Fiat 500 Abarth derived engine (mainly for international models). The 3,0 liter VM diesel motor recently introduced in other Jeep models is a likely option in the Cherokee in all markets.

There are other new Jeep models waiting in the wings. Chrysler management has said to the auto press that it will re-introduce the top of the line Jeep Wagoneer as a luxury model - a lower priced version of the Range Rover is how it was described.

Source: http://jalopnik.com/2014-jeep-cherokee-this-is-it-335476306

[Edited 2013-02-22 19:59:27]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Nice looking, but out of my price range.

For those interested there are around 250 photos on Edmunds.

http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/grand-cherokee/2014/?sub=suv


User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15833 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 1):
For those interested there are around 250 photos on Edmunds.

That's the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which will be a different model than the Cherokee. They'll share some parts but be a separate model like they were during the 1990s.

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
Chrysler management has said to the auto press that it will re-introduce the top of the line Jeep Wagoneer as a luxury model - a lower priced version of the Range Rover is how it was described.

Makes sense as a competitor with the Escalade and Navigator and replacement for the Chrysler Aspen.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21865 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

I'll just go ahead and say it: those headlights are ill-advised.

The rest of the front looks good, though.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4285 times:

THAT IS FUGLY!!!

I can't stand how every single car manufacturer is trying to make everything a crossover. Current liberty look so much better!



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8960 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

I was a big fan of previous Cherokees (I owned a couple of Grand Cherokees). I hate all the chrome in the front, and basing the Cherokee off of a front-wheel drive econobox? Seriously???

I think they've ruined the Cherokee brand name.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2548 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
Some people have said the front styling reminds them of the Nissan Juke

More like the Murano with a scaled down Hummer grill, while trying to sort of copy a Land Rover Evoque and failing miserably. They are getting uglier and uglier each generation   
Be interesting to see how it does in the rough stuff and towing.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13752 posts, RR: 61
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4218 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
I think they've ruined the Cherokee brand name.

Agreed. I had (then) brand new 1998 and 2001 Jeep Cherokees and loved them; they were rugged, rock-solid, and comfortable.

And then they did away with them for that abomination known as the Liberty.   



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4638 posts, RR: 36
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4210 times:

Yet another traditional 4x4 getting the crossover butchery. God I wish this car based crossover trend would die already!


Word
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4210 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
and is to be sold in Europe (through Fiat dealerships)

Which probably means it will be badged as a FIAT, it will be interesting to see what the front will look like with FIAT styling.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4193 times:

That is unbelievably ugly.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 2 days ago) and read 4188 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 8):
Yet another traditional 4x4 getting the crossover butchery. God I wish this car based crossover trend would die already!

It's not going to end, it makes them cheaper to build if they are twined with a car, since the motoring manufacturers know the vast majority of SUV owners never do any off-roading at all why build a car to do that when it's not required by most owners.


User currently offline1stfl94 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Why did they take the photo after the crash test???

User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 4):
I can't stand how every single car manufacturer is trying to make everything a crossover. Current liberty look so much better!

Agreed! I drive a 2011 Jeep Liberty and I bought it specifically because it was NOT a crossover but a true SUV. Jeep already has the Patriot and Compass for the crossover market, why did they turn the Liberty into one as well?


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4124 times:

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 13):

Agreed! I drive a 2011 Jeep Liberty and I bought it specifically because it was NOT a crossover but a true SUV.

How often do you use the Liberty's full off-road potential?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

The split headlamps make me think of the future Citroën C4 Picasso :



However in the Jeep case, done with a hammer, like the rest of the fascia.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4013 times:

Judging from the picture the OP provided, it looks like any other crossover suv on the road. Bland, dull, boring. This is definitely NOT a Jeep.

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3979 times:

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 8):
Yet another traditional 4x4 getting the crossover butchery. God I wish this car based crossover trend would die already!

  

Although I do like the front grill but that's about it.
I HATE that odd shaped side window!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8768 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3938 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
Although I do like the front grill but that's about it.
I HATE that odd shaped side window!

Really? Would have figured this was right in your arena Superfly. You usually stick up for the bizarre American designs. And your knowledge is always amazing!

Yeah, the front lights were classic on the Cherokee. I think they majorly screwed up not maintaining their iconic image. Just the grille configuration.


Like this!



Fun fact: The "XJ" Cherokee was an AMC design from the 1980s. In 1993, the Grand Cherokee "ZJ" was released by Chrysler as a replacement for the XJ. But the XJ kept selling so well, they didn't shut the line down for 7 more years.

[Edited 2013-02-23 13:54:16]

User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 925 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3915 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 14):
How often do you use the Liberty's full off-road potential?

2-3 times a month. However, I will admit that is abnormal. These vehicles are typically used as grocery-getters and mall-crawlers and the only off road situations they deal with are snow and dirt roads.


User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3834 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):

The XJ Cherokee was a 1984 model year. AMC did receive some engineering help on the XJ from its partner Renault,,,, and styling was supposedly a "joint" AMC and Renault effort.



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):
Really? Would have figured this was right in your arena Superfly. You usually stick up for the bizarre American designs. And your knowledge is always amazing!

That odd shaped side window looks like all the other crap CUV windows.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3798 times:

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 19):
These vehicles are typically used as grocery-getters and mall-crawlers and the only off road situations they deal with are snow and dirt roads.

Which a cheaper to build car based SUV will have no problems dealing with. This one is also supposed to be trail rated so it should be ok off-road as well.


User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

The original Cherokee was an inexpensive, no-frills, capable 4X4 SUV.

I don't know what the Hell that thing is in the original post. Front Wheel Drive based? 4 Cylinder engine? I didn't even see a mention of optional 4-wheel drive. That shouldn't even be called a Jeep, let alone a Cherokee. Looks like just a next generation compass.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 18):
Yeah, the front lights were classic on the Cherokee. I think they majorly screwed up not maintaining their iconic image. Just the grille configuration.


Like this!


^That is a Cherokee.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 9):
Which probably means it will be badged as a FIAT, it will be interesting to see what the front will look like with FIAT styling.

Which would be stupid, as Jeep is a brand with a better image than Fiat.... not to mention that Lancia/Jeep dealers (former Chrysler/Jeep/Cadillac) are already there.

It might be that there's both a Fiat and a Jeep version, so that Fiat finally gets a player in the SUV/CUV/whatever new acronym off-road-looking-vehicles-that-can't-go-off-road are known now (other than the rather small Sedici/Suzuki SX4).


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 24):
SX4

SX4?
Now THAT Was a sweet off-road car capable of just about anything. A pony car that could go off road.  




Not sure about that plastic & rubber-ducky toy made by Suzuki.

Look at what the AMC SX4 is capable of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBjecIfCBks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfqXYuTCGCk



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6933 posts, RR: 12
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 24):
Which would be stupid, as Jeep is a brand with a better image than Fiat...

Yeah, I just saw a Cherokee SRT8 yesterday in Paris, I could not see this as a Fiat.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3601 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 24):
so that Fiat finally gets a player in the SUV/CUV/whatever new acronym off-road-looking-vehicles-that-can't-go-off-road are known now (other than the rather small Sedici/Suzuki SX4).

There is already a Fiat SUV the Freemont, a badge engineered Journey. The Sedici was discontinued and will be replaced by the 500X

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Fiat_Freemont_2.0_16V_Multijet_Urban_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht%2C_25._Februar_2012%2C_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg/800px-Fiat_Freemont_2.0_16V_Multijet_Urban_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht%2C_25._Februar_2012%2C_D%C3%BCsseldorf.jpg


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3591 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 27):
There is already a Fiat SUV the Freemont

The Freemont is a minivan, not even optional AWD can change that.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 28):

The Freemont is a minivan, not even optional AWD can change that.

Not really, the Dodge Journey is marketed in the US as a mid size crossover SUV, in European terms I believe it's more Mitsubishi Outlander than VW Touran. FYI the Outlander and Journey/Freemont are built on the same platform.


User currently offlinedarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3500 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
as well as an all-new 9-speed front-wheel-drive automatic transmission.

Good lord, they really need to knock it off with increasing the number of gears. I understand that this helps gear ratios, but so does a CVT and without the obnoxious complexity. I don't know why anyone would buy something with a transmission like that...

Quoting Aesma (Reply 15):
The split headlamps make me think of the future Citroën C4 Picasso :

They need to make that waaaaaaaaaay uglier, or at least odder looking before they can call it a Picasso. Shouldn't it be all wavy or melty or something?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

Wasn't the Jeep Cherokee just re-styled with a lot of fanfare? And the basic Jeep becoming a front driver? Now isn't 4 wheel drive an option on them like many other SUV's? Style wise I'm mixed. I actually liked the last generation and the one prior. Though on the boxy side the angles were nice. This current re-style isn't as bad as the Juke but looks more like one of those tubby stubby funky styled Nissans.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3485 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 31):
Wasn't the Jeep Cherokee just re-styled with a lot of fanfare?

You are thinking of the Jeep Grand Cherokee. This is the Jeep Liberty replacement, which has looked basically the same since 2007.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1889 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 29):
Not really, the Dodge Journey is marketed in the US as a mid size crossover SUV, in European terms I believe it's more Mitsubishi Outlander than VW Touran. FYI the Outlander and Journey/Freemont are built on the same platform.

It's sold and classified here as a minivan, and shows up in statistics right next to the other minivans. the Ssangyong Rodius is also based on a SUV body (actually it's only available with AWD) but it's still a minivan.

For instance:

http://es.autoblog.com/2011/10/23/cu...a-de-los-mpv-grandes-durante-2011/

There's the Freemont along the Sharan/S-Max/Espace, etc. Apparently it's only selling decently in Italy, it struggles to make the top 10 anywhere else.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3421 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 33):
It's sold and classified here as a minivan

That's probably why its sales aren'æt too impressive, it's not an MPV, it was never intended to be an MPV, it's an SUV with 3 rows of seats, like the Outback, which is also not an MPV.


User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3413 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 33):
It's sold and classified here as a minivan

Sorry, but while it may be classified as a minivan per your posted-link; in reality, it is not.

Case and point: in the North American market, Dodge's minivan is the Grand Caravan which looks like the below-pic.



Whereas the Dodge Journey (Fiat Freemont) is clearly a cross-over CUV, a term that may not have yet caught on on your side of the pond.

http://stwot.motortrend.com/files/2012/09/2013-Dodge-Journey-front-three-quarter-1024x640.jpg

Minivans (at least in the Western Hemisphere) traditionally are styled and arranged to feature more upright and have accessible (2nd & 3rd row) seating whereas SUVs/CUVs are more station wagon-like and involve folding of the 2nd row seats to get access to the rear row.

Back to the topic at hand.

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 23):
That shouldn't even be called a Jeep, let alone a Cherokee. Looks like just a next generation compass.

   I was thinking similarly; if this has to exist, it should be replacing the Compass (which is on its way out in another year or two anyway IIRC).

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
basing the Cherokee off of a front-wheel drive econobox? Seriously???

Actually, Jeep did that once before. The current Compass/Patriot shares the same platform as the now-gone Dodge Caliber.

Quoting nws2002 (Reply 13):
Jeep already has the Patriot and Compass for the crossover market, why did they turn the Liberty into one as well?

As I stated earlier, this new Cherokee should replace the Compass (& even Patriot) but not the Liberty.

It's getting to the point where the only rugged, smallish Jeep left is the Wrangler.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 31):
Now isn't 4 wheel drive an option on them like many other SUV's?

Any Jeep vehicle that doesn't offer 4WD, even as an option, is not a Jeep IMHO.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 35):
Any Jeep vehicle that doesn't offer 4WD, even as an option, is not a Jeep IMHO.

SUV's and Crossovers are not my cup of tea. I do know many other car makers feature standard models with dreck wheel drive meaning without the 4 wheel drive they are as stable as slipping on a bananna peel.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 36):
I do know many other car makers feature standard models with dreck wheel drive meaning without the 4 wheel drive they are as stable as slipping on a bananna peel.

Please inform us which FWD versions of an AWD vehicle meet this criteria.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40069 posts, RR: 74
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3314 times:

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 36):
Crossovers are not my cup of tea.

Same here but I do like the Chrysler Pacifica and Ford Flex - with woodgrain side panels.  
Would I ever buy one? Probably not.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 605 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3088 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 35):

A big thing your forgetting about minivans... the sliding doors vs the swing doors.

To me, if it it doesn't slide, it's not a van.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8960 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 35):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
basing the Cherokee off of a front-wheel drive econobox? Seriously???

Actually, Jeep did that once before. The current Compass/Patriot shares the same platform as the now-gone Dodge Caliber.

The Compass/Patriot are throwaway models. Nobody cares about them. The Cherokee and especially the Grand Cherokee, is their flagship vehicle.

Basing it on a FWD econobox is like if Mercedes based their latest S-class on the A-Class, or the Smart Car.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 39):
A big thing your forgetting about minivans... the sliding doors vs the swing doors.

To me, if it it doesn't slide, it's not a van.

Many full-size vans in the U.S. only have swing doors (though dual-swing and they used to offer sliding doors way back when). Since your 2nd sentence stated vans vs. minivans; I thought I'd point that out.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8768 posts, RR: 3
Reply 42, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40):
Basing it on a FWD econobox is like if Mercedes based their latest S-class on the A-Class, or the Smart Car.


If the above 2014 Cherokee had a traditional looking front, traditional fans would love it. I think it is mostly about sheetmetal. The original Cherokee was a horrible vehicle. Had no redeeming qualities other than styling and off-road ability. The above vehicle must be the exact opposite  
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 41):
Many full-size vans in the U.S. only have swing doors (though dual-swing and they used to offer sliding doors way back when)

]

Still reasonable to say a Chrysler Pacifica was an SUV while the Town & Country is a minivan. Not a perfect definition to use doors, but how can we do better?


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8960 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
If the above 2014 Cherokee had a traditional looking front, traditional fans would love it. I think it is mostly about sheetmetal. The original Cherokee was a horrible vehicle. Had no redeeming qualities other than styling and off-road ability. The above vehicle must be the exact opposite

Don't get me wrong - the 80s Cherokee was crap (the 70s models were cool). But they've spent the last 20 years getting it pretty much right, and you don't throw away 20 years of brand equity if you can help it.

And who knows - maybe the Dodge Dart underpinnings are perfectly OK, but they should keep that a secret.

"We have launched a new Rolls Royce Phantom, built on a Hyundai Sonata frame" You think they'll ever try that?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7558 posts, RR: 23
Reply 44, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 42):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 41):
Many full-size vans in the U.S. only have swing doors (though dual-swing and they used to offer sliding doors way back when)

Still reasonable to say a Chrysler Pacifica was an SUV while the Town & Country is a minivan. Not a perfect definition to use doors, but how can we do better?

And I agree with you 100%. My earlier response was a counter-reply to flightsimer's earlier comment, see repost below:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 39):
A big thing your forgetting about minivans... the sliding doors vs the swing doors.

To me, if it it doesn't slide, it's not a van.

IMHO, your Not a perfect definition to use doors should be directed towards him not me.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 43):
But they've spent the last 20 years getting it pretty much right, and you don't throw away 20 years of brand equity if you can help it.

The Cherokee of the 90s was largely the same as the 80s. My family had one (a 1999 model) for 11 years, which was my daily driver for 4. I loved the styling and appreciated it's capabilities, but other than that it was crap. The passenger compartment is incredibly small and cramped (my current car, a Focus, has more room), it was loud, spartan, rough on the road, thristy (you average ~18 mpg highway... in something slightly bigger than a Focus hatchback). Quality was hit or miss. Didn't have the best build quality but it was generally solid reliability wise. We took good car of ours, but towards the end (~170,000 miles) things were starting to frequently go wrong. Engine was perfect until it cracked a gasket (but that was after ~170,000 miles), in which case my parents decided to get rid of it rather than throwing more money in it. Good luck finding an XJ with functioning air conditioning though (unless it has been repaired over and over throughout the life of the car).

After 2001 they dropped the Cherokee name in favor of the Liberty. Many saw the first generation Liberty as a "chick's" car (although it sold decently, but not as high as the XJ Cherokee). The second generation is lucky to get about half the first generation's sales. So no, Jeep hasn't spent the past 20 years "getting it pretty much right."


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Volkswagen Unveils The 7th Generation Golf posted Tue Sep 4 2012 14:38:29 by racko
Thinking Of Buying A Jeep Cherokee posted Mon Mar 29 2010 11:43:30 by RichM
PT Cruiser: Chrysler Pulls The Plug posted Tue Jan 20 2009 07:47:24 by A332
Anyone Ever Own A Jeep Cherokee? posted Sun Jul 22 2007 17:25:39 by Clickhappy
Volkswagen Unveils The New Golf V posted Tue Jul 22 2003 16:05:29 by JAL777
Jeep Cherokee 4.0l, 6 Cylinder? posted Fri Dec 6 2002 11:23:57 by FLY 8
Jeep Cherokee Experiences? posted Tue Oct 22 2002 23:41:34 by LOT767-300ER
Ford Explorer Vs. Jeep Cherokee Sport posted Tue Jul 23 2002 22:11:27 by TurbineBeaver
Your Opinion On The New Jeep Cherokee Liberty posted Tue Nov 6 2001 16:07:45 by Airmale
What Do You Think Of The Jeep Grand Cherokee? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 04:50:06 by PanAm330