Author Topic: Consumer Reports prefers Grand Cherokee to 4Runner (Read 2047 times)

Mitlov · « **on:** November 24, 2010, 03:15:40 pm »

Consumer Reports, which traditionally has loved Toyota and heaped scorn on Chrysler products, came out with a surprising test result. They preferred the new Grand Cherokee to the new 4Runner.

* Off-road ability was about equal to the two vehicles. No surprise there.

* CR thought the GC had better on-road manners. Three years ago, I wouldn't have seen that coming.

* CR thought the GC had the nicer interior, complaining about the "leather seats [that] look like vinyl" and "cheap-looking plastics" of the Toyota (no, not the Jeep, the Toyota). Three years ago, I really wouldn't have seen that coming.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/jeep-grand-cherokee-bests-toyota-4runner-in-latest-consumer-r/

The times, they are a-changin'...

mrthompson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2010, 03:33:51 pm »

Good to see some praise for a Jeep product.

ovr50 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2010, 03:36:07 pm »

If I were looking at something in this catagory, I would for sure consider the new GC in the choices. I had a company car in '93-'94 which was a GC Laredo and they much better today. I like the new GC, congrats to Jeep.

sirAQUAMAN64 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2010, 03:54:03 pm »

The 4Runner has been going downhill for a number of years, and just looks like a sad joke now.

I'm impressed by how quickly Chrysler is moving.

Mike · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2010, 04:13:06 pm »

Quote from: Mitlov on November 24, 2010, 03:15:40 pm

Consumer Reports, which traditionally has loved Toyota and heaped scorn on Chrysler products, came out with a surprising test result. They preferred the new Grand Cherokee to the new 4Runner.

* Off-road ability was about equal to the two vehicles. No surprise there.

* CR thought the GC had better on-road manners. Three years ago, I wouldn't have seen that coming.

* CR thought the GC had the nicer interior, complaining about the "leather seats [that] look like vinyl" and "cheap-looking plastics" of the Toyota (no, not the Jeep, the Toyota). Three years ago, I really wouldn't have seen that coming.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/jeep-grand-cherokee-bests-toyota-4runner-in-latest-consumer-r/

The times, they are a-changin'...

Further proof:

-Anything can happen in the automotive world
-No one makes a 'horrible' product these days
-Consumer reports may still have some objectivity in thier reporting

all positives IMO

PJungnitsch · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2010, 04:31:41 pm »

No big surprise.

CR often rates Toyota mid pack performance wise, sometimes even lower. VW's are what they usually love.

On the test result, it's pretty much the same as Motor Trend. GC is a great all-rounder, 4Runner is fantastic off road, but a bit truck like to live with the rest of the time.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1010_2011_jeep_grand_cherokee_v6_vs_2010_toyota_4runner_trail_edition/index.html

Toyota probably figured they had enough soft-roaders with the Sequoia, RAV4, Highlander, this one was going hardcore, more of a competitor for the Wrangler.

Mitlov · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2010, 04:36:58 pm »

Quote from: PJungnitsch on November 24, 2010, 04:31:41 pm

CR often rates Toyota mid pack performance wise, sometimes even lower. VW's are what they usually love.

I seem to remember them historically fawning over Toyotas in every respect, though I don't have old issues around to prove or disprove that recollection.

Quote

Toyota probably figured they had enough soft-roaders with the Sequoia, RAV4, Highlander, this one was going hardcore, more of a competitor for the Wrangler.

...and yet, for all the downsides of being single-minded or "hardcore," it's no better off-road than the GC, according to CR.

I'd also suggest that it's far too big to be a truly hardcore offroader (the size is why my dad, who drives a 1996 4Runner and uses it in some pretty rough conditions, won't even look at the new one). The FJ Cruiser, not the 4Runner, is supposed to be the Wrangler competitor.

ktm525 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2010, 04:44:59 pm »

The new 4Runner has tons of silver painted plastic on the inside and is two "busy" for my likes.

The outside is butt ugly. How could it end up this way after the beautiful 90's generations???

The tires on the Limited explain it all. The 4Runner is marketed as a rough and ready trail ready non-poser SUV. Then Toyota tacks on 20" wheels on the limited to appeal to the style crowd. The problem with this is now the standard width rubber won't fit so they reduce tire width on the Limited. The Limited is left with tall narrow tires which contibutes to the ugliness of an already ugly vehicle.

The front side markers look like those bulgy eyed goldfish....

PJungnitsch · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2010, 04:57:55 pm »

Quote from: Mitlov on November 24, 2010, 04:36:58 pm

I seem to remember them historically fawning over Toyotas in every respect, though I don't have old issues around to prove or disprove that recollection

Nope, never been so. Toyota's road test score is 8th overall this year, and it's always been something like that. Quite often models have not been recommended, ie the Yaris.

johngenx · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:13:41 pm »

CR has always scored many Toyota products mid pack-ish in their test, but in terms of reliability, Toyota has scored (and still does...) near the top.

The 4-Runner jumped the shark with previous generation, and this gen might be a better off-roader, but is still a bloated overwrought pig compared to many previous models. Too bad.

bridgecity · « **Reply #10 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:35:35 pm »

Car and Driver came up with essentially the same conclusion:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/10q3/jeep_grand_cherokee_vs._kia_borrego_nissan_pathfinder_toyota_4runner-comparison_tests

One thing that stuck out though when I read the article in the mag was the weight of the GC. IIRC, it was 5300+ lbs (Could not find it on Jeeps website or in the article). The online article states the the GC is actually 500+ pounds heavier than the Pathfinder. Thats pushing full size pickup territory. I guess all that luxury comes at a cost.

Anyway, its a very nice looking package. Kudos to Jeep.

ktm525 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:36:43 pm »

Quote from: johngenx on November 24, 2010, 05:13:41 pm

CR has always scored many Toyota products mid pack-ish in their test, but in terms of reliability, Toyota has scored (and still does...) near the top.

The 4-Runner jumped the shark with previous generation, and this gen might be a better off-roader, but is still a bloated overwrought pig compared to many previous models. Too bad.

One of the best features of earlier generations (I had a 1990) was that the narrower track allowed it to stay out of the worst ruts made by full sizers. An incredible machine considering the open diffs. All was not perfect with it though, plagued by weird transmission issues (auto).

johngenx · « **Reply #12 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:48:15 pm »

A friend of mine still has a 2.2L manual 4X4 4-Runner. The body is for

now, but it's indestructible and can go some pretty ridiculous places.

Mitlov · « **Reply #13 on:** November 24, 2010, 05:59:42 pm »

Quote from: johngenx on November 24, 2010, 05:48:15 pm

A friend of mine still has a 2.2L manual 4X4 4-Runner. The body is for now, but it's indestructible and can go some pretty ridiculous places.

My in-laws just totaled their 1990 4Runner (four-cylinder 5MT). (They weren't hurt). After 21 years and over 300,000 miles, it was still running. Couldn't survive a rollover though. There's no doubt that the old 4Runners ran forever and a day.

Of course, that has as much bearing on a 2010 4Runner as the bulletproof ol' Volvo 240 does on a 2010 XC70.

Careener · « **Reply #14 on:** November 24, 2010, 07:15:51 pm »

My friend and I were joking how the GC has a better interior than the 300C when we saw them side by side at the Barrie autoshow. It seemed kind of counter-intuitive.

rrocket · « **Reply #15 on:** November 24, 2010, 07:17:59 pm »

Quote from: Mitlov on November 24, 2010, 03:15:40 pm

Consumer Reports, which traditionally has loved Toyota and heaped scorn on Chrysler products, came out with a surprising test result. They preferred the new Grand Cherokee to the new 4Runner.

* Off-road ability was about equal to the two vehicles. No surprise there.

* CR thought the GC had better on-road manners. Three years ago, I wouldn't have seen that coming.

* CR thought the GC had the nicer interior, complaining about the "leather seats [that] look like vinyl" and "cheap-looking plastics" of the Toyota (no, not the Jeep, the Toyota). Three years ago, I really wouldn't have seen that coming.

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/11/24/jeep-grand-cherokee-bests-toyota-4runner-in-latest-consumer-r/

The times, they are a-changin'...

One of the magazines sorta agreed...but found the 4Runner more capable off-road. That's about as surprising as the Jeep having better manners on road....

For the road they picked the Jeep. For off road, the 4 Runner.

articsteve · « **Reply #16 on:** November 24, 2010, 09:55:32 pm »

They preferred the new Grand Cherokee to the new 4Runner.

Service departments and Indy mechanics much prefer the GC as well.

They preferred the new Grand Cherokee to the new 4Runner.

I would prefer driving a new GC over a new Runner as well providing I had no equity tied up in the vehicle.

Anyone that has ever owned any Jeep product knows that after warranty these units cost, cost, cost, till the bitter end. Very few ppl that have owned an 8 year old GC with 150K on the clock return to the brand.

What are driven around the world in the worst environments?: GCs, Jeeps? NOPE. But rather the Hilux and Hilux Surfs which is the 4Runner. Assembled in the same factories, same electronics, same suspensions, blah, blah,

As with the Grand Cherokee, the Kia’s 4.6-liter V-8 sucked up more fuel but returned acceleration times barely better than the V-6 Toyota’s

Erik · « **Reply #17 on:** November 25, 2010, 10:17:25 am »

Quote from: Careener on November 24, 2010, 07:15:51 pm

My friend and I were joking how the GC has a better interior than the 300C when we saw them side by side at the Barrie autoshow. It seemed kind of counter-intuitive.

The 300C has the old Daimler demanded, cheap and crappy interior. The GC is the new Chrysler, without the German penny pinching. Look for the new 300C later this year. MUCH nicer interior.

carcrazy · « **Reply #18 on:** November 25, 2010, 10:34:00 am »

Quote from: articsteve on November 24, 2010, 09:55:32 pm

What are driven around the world in the worst environments?: GCs, Jeeps? NOPE. But rather the Hilux and Hilux Surfs which is the 4Runner. Assembled in the same factories, same electronics, same suspensions, blah, blah,

But they are older units and most likely they are customized for each market. Everyone agrees I guess that the 90's models have been very reliable.

Shnak · « **Reply #19 on:** November 25, 2010, 10:43:26 am »

Congrats to the GC, but this is one of those classic cases where vehicle B caught up with vehicle A mostly because vehicle A has been on a steep decline in recent years.

With that said, the new GC looks great, and I've always liked the look of 'real' Jeep's (excluding the rebranding crap here... looking at you, Compass!) If they sold an updated Jeep that looked like the 2001 Cheroke, I'd buy one. One of the best-looking SUVs ever, IMO.