Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

First reviews and comparison to 2014 GC

7K views 43 replies 13 participants last post by  barnettd 
#1 ·
I just read a review on autoguide.com and I am not very impressed.

I was waiting for the Cherokee and was seriously considering it but because of the delays I could not wait any longer and bought WK2 a few weeks ago.

I went with Laredo E V6 4x4, All weather group and Uconnect 8.4 + 18" wheels group, paid $34k. The new Cherokee seems to be only $2k (give or take) cheaper in similar trims but WK2 has probably slightly more features. The KL mpgs are not very impressive according to the review and on par with what I get with my GC with (8speed transmission is also slightly more proven).

I yet have to see one in person. I believe the front end will probably look better in flash than in pictures but the rear end is a bummer. Overall, I am not sure how well it is going to sell compared to WK2 since I feel the price difference is not significant enough considering you get a car that does look odd, has a noisy engine, is smaller and has same mpgs as its bigger brother for almost same price.

What do you guys think? How would you compare it to Grand cherokee? And what do you think about the price?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I honestly can't think of a reason to buy a KL over other vehicles, and I think that is it's biggest problem. It is simply too expensive, not capable enough, and doesn't get good enough fuel mileage to seriously consider it over other vehicles. There is likely a very limited market for the combination of capabilities and price that the KL has.

It isn't much more capable than a Subaru Forester. I honestly think the Subaru actually has a better AWD system, since the KL lacks a true 50/50 split mode and only engages the rear axle when the front wheels slip (even the Trailhawk has this system). Non-Trailhawks don't offer anything capability wise-over the Subaru (in fact the Subaru is probably more capable than most trims of the KL) and the Trailhawk only offers a slight increase in capability for a $10k+ premium. Plus the Subaru is cheaper and gets better gas mileage than the KL.

Conversely for only a few grand more you can get a WK2 which is more capable, is offered with true 4WD and a real transfer-case, has better fit and finish, has greater towing capacity, has better engine options, and is just an overall better vehicle.

If you are looking for capability and aren't concerned about gas mileage you could get an Xtera or 4-door Wrangler for about the same price as the KL.

If you aren't concerned about capability at all and just want a cross-over you could get a RAV4, CRV, Equinox, Escape, etc. for the same price or less.

I really just don't see where the KL fits and it seems there are better options for just about every need.

The Patriot has a market because it is cheap and relatively capable making it a good "budget" option , the KL simply doesn't offer much to distinguish itself over competitive vehicles and the price is too high for what it does offer.
 
#3 ·
I honestly can't think of a reason to buy a KL over other vehicles, and I think that is it's biggest problem. It is simply too expensive, not capable enough, and doesn't get good enough fuel mileage to seriously consider it over other vehicles. There is likely a very limited market for the combination of capabilities and price that the KL has.

It isn't much more capable than a Subaru Forester. I honestly think the Subaru actually has a better AWD system, since the KL lacks a true 50/50 split mode and only engages the rear axle when the front wheels slip (even the Trailhawk has this system). Non-Trailhawks don't offer anything capability wise-over the Subaru (in fact the Subaru is probably more capable than most trims of the KL) and the Trailhawk only offers a slight increase in capability for a $10k+ premium. Plus the Subaru is cheaper and gets better gas mileage than the KL.

Conversely for only a few grand more you can get a WK2 which is more capable, is offered with true 4WD and a real transfer-case, has better fit and finish, has greater towing capacity, has better engine options, and is just an overall better vehicle.

If you are looking for capability and aren't concerned about gas mileage you could get an Xtera or 4-door Wrangler for about the same price as the KL.

If you aren't concerned about capability at all and just want a cross-over you could get a RAV4, CRV, Equinox, Escape, etc. for the same price or less.

I really just don't see where the KL fits and it seems there are better options for just about every need.

The Patriot has a market because it is cheap and relatively capable making it a good "budget" option , the KL simply doesn't offer much to distinguish itself over competitive vehicles and the price is too high for what it does offer.
If your going to say the Cherokee has no true 50/50 Split then you have to say the wk2 Grand Cherokee doesn't either. Both systems rely on the select terrain to transfer power front to rear in 4x4 high but in 4x4 low they both will be split 50/50. I'm guessing in the different select terrain modes there is one that will split torque 50/50 but that is just guessing based off of the sport mode being a 60/40 split rear to front.

Neither the Cherokee or Grand Cherokee have a true 4x4 lock in high range like a truck would.
 
#6 ·
I honestly can't think of a reason to buy a KL over other vehicles, and I think that is it's biggest problem. It is simply too expensive, not capable enough, and doesn't get good enough fuel mileage to seriously consider it over other vehicles. There is likely a very limited market for the combination of capabilities and price that the KL has.

It isn't much more capable than a Subaru Forester. I honestly think the Subaru actually has a better AWD system, since the KL lacks a true 50/50 split mode and only engages the rear axle when the front wheels slip (even the Trailhawk has this system). Non-Trailhawks don't offer anything capability wise-over the Subaru (in fact the Subaru is probably more capable than most trims of the KL) and the Trailhawk only offers a slight increase in capability for a $10k+ premium. Plus the Subaru is cheaper and gets better gas mileage than the KL.
There is a trade off for the better gas mileage in the Subaru. You get a smaller, less powerful engine. I wouldn't overlook the importance of towing capacity, which is why Jeep offers a Hemi and now a diesel for the Grand Cherokee (otherwise everyone would be fine with the Pentastar). If you need to tow, the Subaru is only rated to 2400 lbs. The KL Cherokee is rated up to 4500 lbs. That's almost double the capacity of the Forester. For a lot of people with "toys", the Subaru isn't even an option.
 
#9 ·
I wouldn't want to tow any trailer over 2,500-3,000 lbs. with a FWD vehicle (especially one based on a compact car platform) no matter what it is rated for. The weight is on the wrong set of wheels and it places allot of stress on a relatively week uni-body, I would also be very hesitant to trust that light-duty 9-speed automatic transmission (again it designed for FWD cars, not trucks/SUVs)with a heavy trailer (I'm kind of worried how they'll hold up in a vehicle as heavy as the KL even without a trailer). For towing I would be looking at an RWD(primary drive) vehicle with either a full-frame or heavily reinforced uni-body such as a Grand Cherokee, Xtera, 4Runner, etc.
 
#4 ·
I just read a review on autoguide.com and I am not very impressed.

I was waiting for the Cherokee and was seriously considering it but because of the delays I could not wait any longer and bought WK2 a few weeks ago.

I went with Laredo E V6 4x4, All weather group and Uconnect 8.4 + 18" wheels group, paid $34k. The new Cherokee seems to be only $2 (give or take) cheaper in similar trims but WK2 has probably slightly more features. The KL mpgs are not very impressive according to the review and on par with what I get with my GC with (8speed transmission is also slightly more proven).

I yet have to see one in person. I believe the front end will probably look better in flash than in pictures but the rear end is a bummer. Overall, I am not sure how well it is going to sell compared to WK2 since I feel the price difference is not significant enough considering you get a car that does look odd, has a noisy engine, is smaller and has same mpgs as its bigger brother for almost same price.

What do you guys think? How would you compare it to Grand cherokee? And what do you think about the price?
We have a 2012 WK2 with the Pentastar and average about 15MPG with about 90% of driving done around town (no highway). We've always got less than what the sticker says we should get. I'm not sure what you're getting for mileage on yours but until real world numbers come in from owners of the new Cherokee I wouldn't trust the stickers to make the only comparisons to.

I don't think your comparing apples to apples if you're saying there's only a $2k difference in price. The sticker on our WK2 Limited was 43k and I think is about 6K more than a fully loaded KL Limited if I option it with everything, minus the technology group which we don't have. But at that point I do get the idea that if you're in for a penny you might as well be in for a pound. I don't know. It is hard to say without getting my hands on one myself and getting some first hand knowledge. As a WK2 owner I can say this, you can't go wrong with one of your own so be happy with your purchase.
 
#18 ·
Comparing apples to apples, you aren't going to get much more than 1500 lbs towing with the 4 cyl Cherokee over the Subaru Forester. They are pretty even on HP and Torque. The Forester does better with angle of approach and departure. Has better cargo capacity. Better fuel economy. Roomier. The Forester is much lighter than the Cherokee. Overall I believe the Forester is a much better product for the price. The Cherokee reaches beyond $40k for a loaded model. I think Jeep missed the mark big time on this one.
 
#19 ·
I am actually in the market right now and seriously looking at the KL (waiting for them to show up). My wife took a new job and we can now longer carpool together. She has been driving my TJ but won't drive my Genesis Coupe. I need the TJ periodically for work so things get messy. So I am looking to replace the coupe. My criteria are:

  1. Good around town car
  2. Good on road trips (visit the grandkids in California)
  3. Something that can tow my teardrop trailer (~1700lbs loaded) for extended trips.

So the other vehicles I am looking at are the Subaru Forester/Outback and Ford Escape. I have looked at others in the CUV sector but am sitting on these for right now.

Subaru Forester - I originally was looking at the Forester but found out that the 2014 was dropped to 1500lbs maximum towing capacity (with brakes). I have tried to inquire as to why the 1000lb drop in capacity. From my research, it seems to be that Subaru is having problems with the CVT transmission or has reduced the structural integrity of the frame to save weight. My guess is the latter, otherwise they would provide two towing capacities for the manual vs CVT transmission. This just concerns me. I would prefer to not be towing at a vehicles maximum capacity. So the Forester was nixed for the Outback.

Subaru Outback - The Outback is rated at 2700lbs. Great. My concerns with the Outback is that the driver and passenger seats are not the most comfortable and the interior ammenities of Subaru always seem to be a decade behind. I owned a 1993 Impreza that was a beast and survived several children beating the hell out of it. Additionally, it is the cheapest vehicle I am looking at.

Ford Escape - I have been burned by crappy Ford's in the past, so this will only be a backup option.

Some of the recent KL reviews have been promising. I want to actually see the vehicle in person and test drive it. Am I thrilled with the styling... No. Is it a deal breaker.... No. Is it a Cherokee? Meh. Things change. I think that the 4-door Wranglers should have taken over the Cherokee name. Personally, I find 4-doors on a Wrangler to be sacrilegious. I do support calling the KL Honey Badger.

Best.
 
#20 · (Edited)
I know most of you are going to rag on me, but a fully loaded Cherokee Limited is on my short list. No way would I buy one right away...the reviews we have all read are all "first drives", and I'm eagerly watching for more thorough test drive reports, and of course want to check it out in person. In addition, I'll want to make sure any early "bugs" are resolved, and finally I would think you will be able to cut a better deal but not being one of the first buyers on the dealer's doorstep.

I suspect the KL isgoing to be a huge sales success. I think many mass market buyers will perceive the KL to be a more rugged vehicle than competitors like the Rav4, Escape, etc. and be attracted to that, particularly if it's as comfortable and has as good an on road driving experience as the early reports suggest. Another poster mentioned the Xterra and 4 door Wrangler as alternatives, but my perception is that the KL will be a far more luxurious, comfortable vehicle. I'm thinking "baby GC". I expect that Chrysler (or Fiat, or whatever) has hit a sweet spot here, and as much as many "Jeep people" think the use of the Cherokee name for the KL is sinful, using the Cherokee nameplate positions the KL exactly where it needs to be in the market.

I also like the GC (I owned three of them in the past), but I generally prefer a smaller, more nimble vehicle, and if you dig into the features list you will quickly see that the apples to apples MSRP is certainly far more than the $2000 difference the OP suggested.

The Forester XT is also on my short list, but based on the reviews to date I'm expecting that the KL will be significantly more luxurious and comfortable. I test drove two XT's and liked them a lot, although I was lukewarm on the slight turbo lag, and I was surprised that they would not have a more modern nav/ audio interface on a newly designed 2014 model.

If I were to get an XT, I would also get it fully optioned, and the MSRP is $36K. Both dealers quickly offered to discount the price by $1000, and I would expect to do significantly better than that. The MSRP on my theoretical Cherokee Limited is $3k more, but it includes a number of features unavailable on the XT at any price, including remote start, parking assist, blind spot and cross path detection, and substantially better towing capability, including the factory installed tow bar and full size spare. Nice to have the towing capability ready to go if and when you need it for that occasional Uhaul rental :)

Granted you give up an EPA estimated 3 mpg, but I'm assuming the V6 will have more low end torque for real everyday driving versus the turbo lag (don't get me wrong, the XT is FAST once the turbo spools up, and turbo lag is not so substantial that it's a deal breaker).

At least one other poster mentioned that the Subaru has a better AWD system. I'm not clear why. Isn't the "snow" setting essentially full time AWD, and doesn't the "mud/sand" setting lock the transfer case? I'm not really sure, and it would be great if someone who knows for certain could elaborate.

Another poster claims that the KL has a "relatively weak unibody", and that it doesn't have a "heavily reinforced uni-body" like the GC, Xterra and 4 Runner have. I wonder where he or she is getting that information from. Have he or she been under a KL? In fact, have you been under a GC, Xterra, or 4 Runner? I have, and I certainly don't see any heavy reinforcing. Sounds like the poster has spent some time listening to the marketing people at Jeep, Nissan and Toyota :) I towed my 5000 lb. boat and trailer long distances with several GC's and '01 Pathfinder, and never had any issues despite that these are uni-body designs without heavy reinforcing.

The same poster mentioned a "light duty 9 speed automatic", but didn't mention that ZF rates the one being used in the KL at 480 ft. lbs...more than beefy enough to tow 4500 lbs., especially with the extra cooling and shorter gear ratio that comes with the towing package.
 
#22 ·
I know most of you are going to rag on me, but a fully loaded Cherokee Limited is on my short list. No way would I buy one right away...the reviews we have all read are all "first drives", and I'm eagerly watching for more thorough test drive reports, and of course want to check it out in person. In addition, I'll want to make sure any early "bugs" are resolved, and finally I would think you will be able to cut a better deal but not being one of the first buyers on the dealer's doorstep.

I suspect the WJ is going to be a huge sales success. I think many mass market buyers will perceive the WJ to be a more rugged vehicle than competitors like the Rav4, Escape, etc. and be attracted to that, particularly if it's as comfortable and has as good an on road driving experience as the early reports suggest. Another poster mentioned the Xterra and 4 door Wrangler as alternatives, but my perception is that the WJ will be a far more luxurious, comfortable vehicle. I'm thinking "baby GC". I expect that Chrysler (or Fiat, or whatever) has hit a sweet spot here, and as much as many "Jeep people" think the use of the Cherokee name for the WJ is sinful, using the Cherokee nameplate positions the WJ exactly where it needs to be in the market.

I also like the GC, but I generally prefer a smaller, more nimble vehicle, and if you dig into the features list you will quickl;y see that the apples to apples MSRP is certainly far more than the $2000 difference the OP suggested.

The Forester XT is also on my short list, but based on the reviews to date I'm expecting that the WJ will be significantly more luxurious and comfortable. I test drove two XT's and liked them a lot, although I was lukewarm on the slight turbo lag, and I was surprised that they would not have a more modern nav/ audio interface on a newly designed 2014 model.

If I were to get an XT, I would also get it fully optioned, and the MSRP is $36K. Both dealers quickly offered to discount the price by $1000, and I would expect to do significantly better than that. The MSRP on my theoretical Cherokee Limited is $3k more, but it includes a number of features unavailable on the XT at any price, including remote start, parking assist, blind spot and cross path detection, and substantially better towing capability, including the factory installed tow bar and full size spare. Nice to have the towing capability ready to go if and when you need it for that occasional Uhaul rental :)

Granted you give up an EPA estimated 3 mpg, but I'm assuming the V6 will have more low end torque for real everyday driving versus the turbo lag (don't get me wrong, the XT is FAST once the turbo spools up, and turbo lag is not so substantial that it's a deal breaker).

At least one other poster mentioned that the Subaru has a better AWD system. I'm not clear why. Isn't the "snow" setting essentially full time AWD, and doesn't the "mud/sand" setting lock the transfer case? I'm not really sure, and it would be great if someone who knows for certain could elaborate.

Another poster claims that the WJ has a "relatively weak unibody", and that it doesn't have a "heavily reinforced uni-body" like the GC, Xterra and 4 Runner have. I wonder where he or she is getting that information from. Have he or she been under a WJ? In fact, have you been under a GC, Xterra, or 4 Runner? I have, and I certainly don't see any heavy reinforcing. Sounds like the poster has spent some time listening to the marketing people at Jeep, Nissan and Toyota :) I towed my 5000 lb. boat and trailer long distances with several GC's and '01 Pathfinder, and never had any issues despite that these are uni-body designs without heavy reinforcing.

The same poster mentioned a "light duty 9 speed automatic", but didn't mention that ZF rates the one being used in the WJ at 480 ft. lbs...more than beefy enough to tow 4500 lbs., especially with the extra cooling and shorter gear ratio that comes with the towing package.
First of all stop calling it a WJ, you will make a lot of people angry about that, the WJ is the last solid axle front and rear Grand Cherokee. The new Cherokee is the KJ.
I know what the 4x4 is supposed to do, which is stay engaged in every mode but Auto, so the reviews saying it needs to detect slippage to engage the rear axle even in 4x4 low in rock mode confuse me, I'm hoping they are imagining things or it is a pre production model with out of date software.
 
#26 ·
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/09/19/2014-jeep-cherokee-review-first-drive/

Torsional body stiffness claimed to be 36% better than Liberty (14800 ftlbs /degree)

Following all this discussion here, I would have to say that the CVT on a Subaru is a deal breaker for me. Gears are remarkably efficient, durable (usually outlast the vehicle) and don't depend on dynamic friction to operate. The theoretical efficiency gains don't pay off for the fragile underlying concept. That's too bad. I generally like Subarus.
 
#27 ·
I would have to say that the CVT on a Subaru is a deal breaker for me. Gears are remarkably efficient, durable (usually outlast the vehicle) and don't depend on dynamic friction to operate. The theoretical efficiency gains don't pay off for the fragile underlying concept. That's too bad. I generally like Subarus.
That is the one downside of the Subaru, however they also have the manual option (though the "Limited" and "Touring" trims are CVT only) which is what I'd get if I was buying one. The 3.6L H6 Outback still comes with a regular automatic, but the CVT is now the only auto option on the Forester and 4-cyl Outback.
 
#30 ·
The market is different. The original Cherokee base had off roaders that needed something bigger than a wrangler or CJ. That market is now occupied by the JKU. The rest of the market was occasional off roaders (hunters, farmers) and (dare I say it?) suburban moms. Those occasional guys will probably do great with the new one.

To be honest, I'm really not worried about this drive train.
 
#38 ·
KG8893 said:
On a vehicle that weighs 2500# towing a 4000# trailer, a damn good set of brakes is needed, and without any type of trailer brake system, it's an accident waiting to happen.
Agreed, but nothing weighs 2500# except Smart Cars(less) and Lotus.

Sent from my iPhone using JeepForum
 
#43 ·
Another review on thetruthaboutcars.com

From the article:

"Any reservations about the new Cherokee dishonoring the vaunted XJ Cherokee of years past, as well as the Jeep brand, can be put to bed. This is the real deal as far as off-road capability. The big problem is that the vast majority of Cherokees, Trailhawk models included, will probably not see an off-road course. At most, they'll traverse a gravel driveway or a turnout. If you want a crossover that can hang with a Wrangler Rubicon, then there is no other option. But for anybody looking for a solid CUV option for the daily grind, it's tough to recommend the Cherokee. Discounting its amazing off-road abilities, it does not appear to be competitive with the current class leaders in terms of on-road performance, build quality and cargo capacity. The fact that its big brother, the Grand Cherokee, is so competent makes the Cherokee's faults even more disappointing."
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top