2014 Jeep Cherokee - XJ fans look away.

Tom Suddard wrote: 2nd gen Trooper, Land Rover Defender, Geo Tracker. ;) Also, here's some more food for thought: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/new-cars/2012-jeep-grand-cherokee-overland-summit/ The new "ruined" grand Cherokee was quite capable off-road.

We talk a lot here about cars that are worryingly expensive to take on track for fear something might happen to them.

Is this an arena where more expensive models can only be used for their intended purpose after they depreciate? A $50k off-roader may be capable, but does anyone actually use them for that before they're 5-10 years old?

What a weird concept: A vehicle which is a street-only commuter with a certain pedigree or panache, which can only be exploited to its full capabilities once it's lost half its value or so...

Meh, people take Rubicons off road all the time. The Grand Cherokee, with some extra armor, would make a great trail rig!

In reply to Tom Suddard:

I believe it, but it makes my head spin.

Let's say you decide to trade in after a year. You've got 10k miles on it and one really good gouge (w/creased, dented sheetmetal) on a rocker panel... How much do you suppose the gouge takes off the value?

OTOH, for a one-year-old vehicle of that value, I wonder whether a lot can just replace the rocker and touch-up the paint? Guess it depends on whether it's really just one good rocker gouge or whether the whole body is covered in tiny dents and scratches from branches and so forth...

This all started for me with a mental exercise of trying to picture the 2014 XJ filthy on some more aggressive tires and wheels somewhere along a trail to see if it looked any less ridiculous...

For every (literally) 100 new Wranglers I see, maybe one has a spec of mud or dirt. Hell, most have either stock wheels or 22 inchers or some goofy street tire.

Too bad in Mass, most 4x4s never get the use they deserve.

Loud noises.

I am not the target market for this vehicle. That said, it looks atrocious to me. I prefer the Juke's styling.

ransom wrote: In reply to Tom Suddard: I believe it, but it makes my head spin. Let's say you decide to trade in after a year. You've got 10k miles on it and one really good gouge (w/creased, dented sheetmetal) on a rocker panel... How much do you suppose the gouge takes off the value? OTOH, for a one-year-old vehicle of that value, I wonder whether a lot can just replace the rocker and touch-up the paint? Guess it depends on whether it's really just one good rocker gouge or whether the whole body is covered in tiny dents and scratches from branches and so forth... This all started for me with a mental exercise of trying to picture the 2014 XJ filthy on some more aggressive tires and wheels somewhere along a trail to see if it looked any less ridiculous...

Around here.. off road means fire roads, sand, and mud. Most vehicles come through those conditions filty, but unscathed. I even used to off road a first generation Hyundai Excel (and it did quite well) and that included at least one almost knee deep stream crossing.

They finally released shots of the rear end. I can't say I love it. The whole vehicle is something to get used to, but the "Hardcore" off-road version looks kind of cool.

You know what, Jeep is just going to find out if it's a winner or loser by sales.

Interior looks nice at least.

Hmmm. It's starting to grow on me... the different wheels help a lot.

mtn wrote: The thing that annoys me about it (and I am not a Jeep guy at all) is that they are putting a Cherokee name on a vehicle that is rumored to be on the same platform as the current Dart.

Yeah, that one bothers me a bit more about it than looks.

Of course, there have been Jeeps intended for pavement only use for a while:

logdog wrote: In a world of blandness its nice to see controversial styling.

I could hardly disagree more. As an architect, I definitely appreciate risk-taking design. However, never confuse "controversial" with "good" or "attractive". Risky design decisions are not automatically bad, but they are never an excuse to make something ugly just for the sake of being different.

Duke wrote:

logdog wrote: In a world of blandness its nice to see controversial styling.

I could hardly disagree more. As an architect, I definitely appreciate risk-taking design. However, *never* confuse "controversial" with "good" or "attractive". Risky design decisions are not automatically bad, but they are never an excuse to make something ugly just for the sake of being different.

My controversial use of adjectives strikes again!!

Duke wrote:

logdog wrote: In a world of blandness its nice to see controversial styling.

However, *never* confuse "controversial" with "good" or "attractive". Risky design decisions are not automatically bad, but they are never an excuse to make something ugly just for the sake of being different.

"Good" or "attractive" is subjective. I don't like the front end of the Cherokee, but the rest looks good. I also applaud a vehicle with a mechanical locking diff instead of wires and brake components that do the work (but never as well).
I could point to a few Frank Lloyd Wright designs that are pretty dang ugly, but somebody likes them.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: They finally released shots of the rear end. I can't say I love it. The whole vehicle is something to get used to, but the "Hardcore" off-road version looks kind of cool. You know what, Jeep is just going to find out if it's a winner or loser by sales.

Hey Jeep, show some pics of it driving over REAL terrain. I've taken a Sunfire through rougher terrain than that.

slefain wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: They finally released shots of the rear end. I can't say I love it. The whole vehicle is something to get used to, but the "Hardcore" off-road version looks kind of cool. You know what, Jeep is just going to find out if it's a winner or loser by sales.

Hey lawyers, allow Jeep to show some pics of it driving over REAL terrain. I've taken a Sunfire through rougher terrain than that.

Jeep is affiliated with Jeep Jambories and puts on something called Camp Jeep. Both of these events have trails that can, and do, lead to significant body damage. If they could post pics, they would.

I like this.

I'm not a big fan of the Compass or Patriot. People I know who have had Liberty's have great praise for its ability to get through difficult terrain, but I don't like the packaging.

The Wrangler is ridiculous as a daily driver proposition, unless you live in the mountains somewhere, and the Grand is an expensive car to buy and feed.

This looks to me less like a Juke and more like Jeep's version of the Range Rover Evoque, with some details that remind me of the new Escape or Mazda CX-5. If it has legit AWD and is priced well and supported by warranty/dealers, it could be very competitive.

I like it, and I'm shopping for a newer car over the next year or so. I can see considering one of these.

In reply to mattmacklind:

You know what? I agree with what you have described.

As for the 4WD system:

Car and Driver said: Although front-wheel drive is the default for Sport, Latitude, and Limited, the Cherokee will offer three distinct and surprisingly comprehensive 4x4 driveline configurations that belie its suburban looks. Jeep Active Drive I—available on Sport, Latitude, and Limited models—is a fully automatic, single power-takeoff unit (PTU) system said to improve both under- and oversteer conditions, deliver yaw control, and offer balanced torque distribution via the braking system. Jeep Active Drive II is also available on Sport, Latitude, and Limited models, and offers a two-speed PTU with low range. Selecting 4-Low mode locks the front and rear driveshafts and provides a 2.92:1 gear reduction for maximum torque and pulling power. When teamed with the four-cylinder engine, Active Drive II provides a 56:1 crawl ratio; the crawl ratio with the V-6 is 47.8:1. This system also pulls off the brake-based torque-apportioning trick. The third system, Jeep Active Jeep Drive Lock, is standard on the Trailhawk, and adds a locking rear differential to all of the Active Drive II features for better low-speed traction. All four-wheel-drive systems feature Jeep’s driver-configurable Selec-Terrain traction-control setup that optimizes driveline operations for certain conditions. Settings include Auto, Snow, Sport, Sand/Mud, or Rock, and they alter up to 12 vehicle systems—including stability control, hill descent and ascent, electronic brake and powertrain control, and more—in the name of optimal traction and safety. Unique to the segment is a rear axle that can completely disconnect when 4x4 isn’t required, decreasing driveline drag for improved mileage. Motorhome owners will be pleased to know that Active Drive II–equipped Cherokees completely disengage the drivetrain for flat towing simply by placing the selector in neutral. If you’d rather your Cherokee pull than be pulled, towing is limited to 2000 pounds in standard models and 4500 pounds in V-6 Cherokees with the towing package.

It actually sounds rather promising for a CUV!

Awesome! Real low-range, a locking rear differential, a real towing capacity, and decent looks. I'm in!

That styling is stupid on a Land Rover and even stupider on a Jeep. Now get off my lawn...

Back end looks like a Kia and a Tribeca merged. I don't like it.

That thing is as ugly as the yellow side of dogE36 M3. I thought Jeep styling had reached the ultimate low with the Compass but this shows there are still depths to be plumbed.

slefain wrote:

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: They finally released shots of the rear end. I can't say I love it. The whole vehicle is something to get used to, but the "Hardcore" off-road version looks kind of cool. You know what, Jeep is just going to find out if it's a winner or loser by sales.

Hey Jeep, show some pics of it driving over REAL terrain. I've taken a Sunfire through rougher terrain than that.

beat me to it. I was just thinking "my old e30 was in worse terrain than that at the last rallycross".....

One thing I really wish is that they would square off the back end instead of having that angled-in hatch window. The XJ was great because it had a big square interior that could fit a ton of things that other SUVs its size can't fit. I've never understood all these raked hatchlines on SUVs that do nothing but reduce what you can carry in them (particularly those that don't have opening upper hatch glass, which could compensate a bit.

If they did that, and put some less stupid headlights on it, I might actually like it.

http://jalopnik.com/six-ways-the-2014-jeep-cherokee-is-better-than-the-xj-461239031

I need a "troll face" emoticon or something!