Well it's not WJ but it is GC - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > Grand Cherokee General Discussion > Well it's not WJ but it is GC

Jeep Wrangler Bushwacker Flat Fender Flare Sale at BaselinStainless Steel Door Hinge PinsPoly Door Hinge Bushings

Reply
Unread 04-12-2014, 10:27 PM   #1
PLAN D
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DENVER,CO.
Posts: 182
Well it's not WJ but it is GC


Just to keep it tech related, how do they do it?

PLAN D is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-12-2014, 11:44 PM   #2
andrewx12
Registered User
2000 WJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 123
That's a '14 cherokee. Otherwise pretty cool. They had something like this at the autoshow in my town in January. They allowed the people to sit in the car while they did it. Though the course was shorter and had less in it.
__________________
Current repairs needed:
back Shocks,Clunk from unknown (found), diff fluids
Soon to be: muffler
andrewx12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-13-2014, 08:20 AM   #3
vonericsen
Registered User
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Posts: 777
When I went to the Denver auto show they had a course with all those things set up and would take you through it. Sitting on the side watching, you could see a big difference in the the new GC handled the course vs the JKs.
__________________
[URL="http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f197/vonericsens-build-thread-995145/"]Build Thread[/URL]

Moss Green 95 5.2l zj- 3in lift (2" BB + Upcountry coils), 255 75 R17 BFG M/T on JK Moabs, Durango Airhat, Mopar ECU, Mopar Tire Carrier
vonericsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-13-2014, 11:07 AM   #4
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,382
Pretty cool what it can do with a wheel in the air.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-13-2014, 01:56 PM   #5
Timo_90xj
Web Wheeler
 
Timo_90xj's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland - on the European side of the Atlantic
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchizophrenicMC View Post
Pretty cool what it can do with a wheel in the air.
Any vehicle with 4wd with locking diffs and/ or something equivalent of lockers (using individual brakes to control wheel spin and transfer torque) can do that, if it has enough ground clearance. But it's true the system seems to works pretty well. Does the Trailhawk versions come standard with a rear locker, or is it optional? What amazes me though, is the complete lack of suspension travel on that Cherokee.. looks like it doesn't have any more wheel travel than the average 2wd passenger car has. It's not wonder though, with the IFS/ IRS and main focus on on-road handling. The new GC isnt' any better than that really.

I'd like to see how a WJ with the Varilok axles would handle that. Stock ZJs or XJs wouldn't probably stand a chance on that course, most likely not enough wheel travel with the swaybars connected and no real lockers -> fail They'd certainly flex better than that POS Cherokee, but stock travel isn't all that great really on the ZJs or XJs. TJ/JK Rubicons - that's another story with the true lockers and swaybar disco
__________________
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 LX daily driver, 1.75" BB, 32" KM2s, HPD30 Eaton e-locker/D44a stock LSD, 4.56 gears, custom- fabbed tube bumpers and tube fenders,...

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f13/d...s-etc-1222317/


1990 XJ Limited (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, ***rolled and totalled @ 165k miles***

***Under construction***
1990 XJ (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, PBR 42" tires, Unimog 404 portal axles, 110" WB, full cage + uniframe completely rebuilt, front 3-link + panhard / double triangulated 4-link rear,... ***SOLD***
Timo_90xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-14-2014, 12:18 AM   #6
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,382
It has more wheel travel than a typical passenger car, but you're not seeing it because the scale of what it's going over is so much greater than a typical passenger car could give it. That said, it's not about wheel travel, it's about finding traction where there isn't any. My ZJ wouldn't be able to do a lot of that. Stock articulation isn't all that good, as seen here:



Stock ZG there.

Plus, ZJs don't have any clever differential stuff. Some have rear LSD, but none have front LSD, and none have any clever traction control. Stock for stock, the new stuff kicks our ***.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-14-2014, 01:02 AM   #7
Timo_90xj
Web Wheeler
 
Timo_90xj's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland - on the European side of the Atlantic
Posts: 5,416
Like I wrote, stock TJs, XJs or ZJs (or WJs without varilock) would most likely fail on that course. No traction-enhancing devices, apart from LSD - which is useless in most situations anyways


Looking at the video and looking at the wheel travel amounts, that Cherokee really does not have much more wheeltravel than a normal car. Dunno the exact figures, but they can't be too much. Wheeltravel is a part of the equation, if you can keep all feet on the ground and some weight on them, you get more traction. But as we all know, lockers are what will get us out of trouble - or into even more serious trouble..
__________________
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 LX daily driver, 1.75" BB, 32" KM2s, HPD30 Eaton e-locker/D44a stock LSD, 4.56 gears, custom- fabbed tube bumpers and tube fenders,...

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f13/d...s-etc-1222317/


1990 XJ Limited (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, ***rolled and totalled @ 165k miles***

***Under construction***
1990 XJ (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, PBR 42" tires, Unimog 404 portal axles, 110" WB, full cage + uniframe completely rebuilt, front 3-link + panhard / double triangulated 4-link rear,... ***SOLD***
Timo_90xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-14-2014, 08:04 AM   #8
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,382
I wouldn't say it has much more travel, but a normal car won't drop a wheel even that far. The swaybar and shock absorber would prevent it.

Say what you will about upgradeability, we're on the same page about how it performs stock. The Jeeps we like to think are amazing, could not match that level of performance without significant modification. Which I think is insane, and does a lot to open a discourse about solid axles vs IFS.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-15-2014, 11:18 PM   #9
Myusername1674
Web Wheeler
 
Myusername1674's Avatar
1995 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 2,167
True that it does do it's job well, but if you throw lockers in a stock height zj/xj/tj it would do the same thing. Now of course we all know that you don't get lockers without bigger tires, and then not bigger tires without better axles... Then we get into the jeep stuff we all love
__________________
95 FiveTwo ZJ, DD, Lifted, Locked on 35s, Build (in progress)

My 5.9 swap (in progress)

Want your zj to be doorless in 60 seconds?
Myusername1674 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2014, 01:05 AM   #10
SnowLeopard
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,452
A stock ZJ still has twice the wheel travel as the new Cherokee, and for the money they charge for a Trailhawk, you might as well buy an XJ, ZJ, or WJ and mod the hell out of it. You'd still end up money ahead and with a far better off-roader. The new Cherokee is meant for on-road comfort with a little edge of off-roadability for the 1% of buyers who will take it on more than a dirt road. It's like the VW Tiguan, it 'can' go off-road, but who's going to actually do it? My hangup is that for the same money you can get a 2-3 year old Grand Cherokee with a lot of extras. Jeep seems to have ramped up the cost too much with this new version. The old Cherokee was a cheap off-road machine that was capable while being simple to work on - a good combination.
__________________
Yes, it snows in Texas.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
SnowLeopard is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2014, 01:25 AM   #11
Timo_90xj
Web Wheeler
 
Timo_90xj's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland - on the European side of the Atlantic
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myusername1674 View Post
True that it does do it's job well, but if you throw lockers in a stock height zj/xj/tj it would do the same thing. Now of course we all know that you don't get lockers without bigger tires, and then not bigger tires without better axles... Then we get into the jeep stuff we all love
This exactly.

I've been occasionaly wheeling with a guy that has an IIRC 2007 WK with the factory automatic electric lockers on it, 2" OME lift and 265/75 R16s. Before I installed a front locker and rebuilt the rear LSD, I couldn't keep up with him in some places even though I had front swaybar disconnected, and I had WAY more front & rear wheel travel. Had I been on stock CAs and swaybar connected on the 32s I have, I would've had no chance keeping up with him.
__________________
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 LX daily driver, 1.75" BB, 32" KM2s, HPD30 Eaton e-locker/D44a stock LSD, 4.56 gears, custom- fabbed tube bumpers and tube fenders,...

http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f13/d...s-etc-1222317/


1990 XJ Limited (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, ***rolled and totalled @ 165k miles***

***Under construction***
1990 XJ (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, PBR 42" tires, Unimog 404 portal axles, 110" WB, full cage + uniframe completely rebuilt, front 3-link + panhard / double triangulated 4-link rear,... ***SOLD***
Timo_90xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2014, 08:57 AM   #12
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,382
I'm of the opinion that wheel travel doesn't matter terribly as much as the purists want to believe, and that it's all about torque control. Stock, the ZJ/XJ/TJ didn't have BLD or locking diffs, though the KL does. (That wasn't even a Trailhawk model, mind you) So stock for stock, the KL wins.

Now, you can't really compare the value of a new car versus that of a 20 year old car. It doesn't scale. Of course the ZJ's cheaper than the KL, that's why I can afford one. But a new KL is cheaper than a new WK2, and though it's probably slightly less capable than the WK2, it's still more capable than any other vehicle in its segment on the market today. And for everyone shouting that prices have gotten too high, that's because of inflation. If you adjust for inflation, the base WK2 is cheaper than a base ZJ, 20 years ago. The JK is exactly $300 cheaper today than it was in 1994, base for base, adjusted for inflation.

And of course modern Jeeps are designed for comfort over capability, it's what sells. The XJ started the trend, the ZJ made it clear, the WJ refined it, the KJ made it cheaper, the WK tread into IFS waters as the flagship, the JK followed suit with the ZJ and WJ, and the WK2 is the Range Rover, minus $60,000. So it follows that the KL will be this way. That's fine, and bear in mind, North America was the only market where the KJ and KK weren't called Cherokee. Also, do realize, these are the best selling Jeeps of all time. And the most capable, frankly.

Adjusted for inflation my Orvis cost $64,000. The only way I can get a WK2 for that much money is if I get an SRT. Even the Summit with the diesel and Offroad Adventure II doesn't cost that much. But that WK2 would easily outwheel my Orvis, stock to stock. I blame technology. Who needs wheel travel, when you can do the work smartly?
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-16-2014, 05:54 PM   #13
SnowLeopard
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,452
Schizo, where are you getting your inflation numbers from? And you're forgetting ground clearance here, where fancy technology isn't going to save you. I think it worth taking note of how important an issue that can become when truly wheeling any vehicle.
__________________
Yes, it snows in Texas.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
SnowLeopard is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-17-2014, 12:16 AM   #14
SchizophrenicMC
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,382
NADA historic prices, Westegg's inflation calculator, Jeep.com, VIN reports.

You'll also do well to note the ground clearance and running angles on the KL, as reported by Allpar which aren't terribly impressive on their own, but are well beyond anything else in the KL's class. It's only got 1.5" less ground clearance than a stock XJ, and it manages similar or better running angles.

The KL doesn't intend to be a super 4-wheeling offroad machine, it's a family SUV. Just like the XJ was 30 years ago. And like the XJ, in its class, despite being designed overwhelmingly for creature comfort (coil sprung front suspension, and a unibody chassis?! Egad, it's the end of offroading!), it's a standout performer. It is, arguably, better than the Jeeps of the last generation, despite claims about suspension design or running light shape. I'd say that goes well as a testament to Jeep's commitment to its heritage.
__________________
1997 Grand Cherokee Orvis Edition
1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited

Shoulda had a V8
SchizophrenicMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-17-2014, 01:33 AM   #15
SnowLeopard
Registered User
1997 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,452
These days they call it "running ground clearance" instead of minimum ground clearance. In an XJ, the pumpkin of a diff might be the low point, but even then with articulation you often could manage your way over obstacles without hitting it. There's no means for this with a KL. So it is somewhat capable, but as you said, not an off-road machine. It's mostly another wagon similar to a Forester, but yes, with better off-road functionality. The divergence is in tailoring vehicles either for people that want to drive an AWD wagon or a purely off-road buggy that is miserable on the road, aka the JK. This chasm grows with each successive generation. It's what the market dictates, and Jeep is trying. I just don't see the current Cherokee as truly deserving of that name. Just come up with a new name already and people won't be so upset with you. What'd the TFL people say, the Weasel?
__________________
Yes, it snows in Texas.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need roads"
SnowLeopard is offline   Reply With Quote




Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.