Author Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8  (Read 2595 times)

Offline Autos_Editor

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6380
  • Carma: +80/-425
  • member
    • View Profile
Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« on: February 28, 2013, 06:31:22 am »


A new Grand Cherokee is coming for 2014, but there are still some good reasons to opt for a 2013.

Read More...

Offline redman

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1613
  • Carma: +57/-189
  • Gender: Male
  • "Have no critics, you'll likely have no success."
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 Subaru Legacy Limited, 98 Subaru Forester S
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2013, 09:01:58 am »
Excellent read, very informative.

Since peeking at the 2014 JGC I'm liking this one even more.

It looks like the Jeep V8 needs to be revised or just dumped for the diesel at the same price as the V8.

Just hope designers don't chop the roof line of the upcoming Jeeps, as this seems to be a current trend.

Bring on the diesel if the price hike can be kept to a minimum.

Past New Car Dealer for : BMW, Lexus, Nissan and Toyota<br />Past Used Vehicle Dealer: All Makes and Models. Seen a lot of it. Drove a lot of it. <br />Four-stroke Otto Engine 1876. Modern timer, pop-up toaster 1919. Keep convincing yourself that you have the "latest appliance".

Offline OliverD

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Carma: +49/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2006 Mazda6 GT wagon, 2007 Mazda3 GT sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2013, 09:36:03 am »
What's the point of reviewing the '13 model when the significantly improved '14 is just around the corner?

Offline SaskSpecV

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1464
  • Carma: +64/-129
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #3 on: February 28, 2013, 10:00:42 am »
What's the point of reviewing the '13 model when the significantly improved '14 is just around the corner?

The point is that Jeep gave them this vehicle to review - probably in the hopes of spurring 2013 GC sales at bit, so that less incentives are needed to clear them out before the 14's arrive.  We all know autos.ca doesn't get to choose which vehicles to review - though after Wing's week-long 911 test, I'm not so sure anymore...

And the upcoming 2014s (and all their impending improvements) were clearly identified at the beginning of the article, so it's not like they are hiding it from the reader.

Offline opg210

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 266
  • Carma: +19/-15
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2010 VW Golf Wagon, 2012 Mini Cooper convertible, 2006 Ninja 650R
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #4 on: February 28, 2013, 10:34:57 am »
I wonder why looking at the sky has become so much more important than looking to the side or behind. That acre of glass on the ceiling would be more useful on the sides of the cabin...

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #5 on: February 28, 2013, 10:43:15 am »
Good review!! I really like this SUV, nice size, good looking, comfortable and with the V8 the way Id get it. One thing though, I cant believe those pathetic, all season car tires with a 60 series sidewall is what Jeep includes with their offroad "adventure package"......  ::) ::)   :banghead: :shake:
Keep the change you filthy animal.

Offline NoTo

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2714
  • Carma: +66/-273
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Subaru Forester XT Limited; 2010 Toyota 'rolla CE; 2006 Lexus RX400h
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2013, 11:07:55 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

Online Northernridge

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Carma: +302/-337
  • Gender: Male
  • Because I say so.
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 MB E350, 2011 GMC Sierra 1500
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2013, 11:10:55 am »
Good review!! I really like this SUV, nice size, good looking, comfortable and with the V8 the way Id get it. One thing though, I cant believe those pathetic, all season car tires with a 60 series sidewall is what Jeep includes with their offroad "adventure package"......  ::) ::)   :banghead: :shake:

I'm with you on this. If I had to drive a 55k SUV I'd start my search with this and the 4Runner and probably prefer the Jeep for its comfort. I'd also want the V8...I think I'd pass on the new diesel. I might even let the devil and angel on my shoulder battle it out over the SRT8.

I guess if I was spending more like 60-65, I'd start with the Suburban though.
There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them.
― Heisenberg

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2013, 11:18:57 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

This thing is almost in a category of its own in the SUV category, for me anyways, because it actually has options I care about. Rear dvd players, heated floormats, in dash IPad touchscreens and all that fluff I couldnt care less about, skidplates, locking diffs, low range, towing capacity and just over capability are things I actually saying that.....the Hemi is good, the Diesel should be better.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2013, 11:20:31 am »
Good review!! I really like this SUV, nice size, good looking, comfortable and with the V8 the way Id get it. One thing though, I cant believe those pathetic, all season car tires with a 60 series sidewall is what Jeep includes with their offroad "adventure package"......  ::) ::)   :banghead: :shake:

I'm with you on this. If I had to drive a 55k SUV I'd start my search with this and the 4Runner and probably prefer the Jeep for its comfort. I'd also want the V8...I think I'd pass on the new diesel. I might even let the devil and angel on my shoulder battle it out over the SRT8.

I guess if I was spending more like 60-65, I'd start with the Suburban though.

I was taken for a ride in a SRT-8......holy mary mother of god, that thing rocks. For a 5000Lb suv, she picked up her skirts and flew when you put the hammer down....and sounded absolutely fantastic through a full aftermarket headers and exhaust system  ;D

Online Northernridge

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 6249
  • Carma: +302/-337
  • Gender: Male
  • Because I say so.
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2012 MB E350, 2011 GMC Sierra 1500
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2013, 11:32:55 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

The only reason I'd consider a GC is because it has off road options. I'd strike the GC from my SUV list if off road bits weren't part of the package. No Mall Finder for me...zero interest in an ML, RX, MDX etc.

At my house cars are for on the road, trucks are for off the road....at least until my knees give out.

My SUV would see mud and trails.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2013, 11:37:37 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

The only reason I'd consider a GC is because it has off road options. I'd strike the GC from my SUV list if off road bits weren't part of the package. No Mall Finder for me...zero interest in an ML, RX, MDX etc.

At my house cars are for on the road, trucks are for off the road....at least until my knees give out.

My SUV would see mud and trails.


 :iagree: :cheers: Exactly, I expect an SUV to be a proper SUV, not a minivan with a high driving position. Thats what attract me to it, they actually keep offroading on the table at the design meeting.

Offline NoTo

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 2714
  • Carma: +66/-273
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2011 Subaru Forester XT Limited; 2010 Toyota 'rolla CE; 2006 Lexus RX400h
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2013, 11:44:14 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

The only reason I'd consider a GC is because it has off road options. I'd strike the GC from my SUV list if off road bits weren't part of the package. No Mall Finder for me...zero interest in an ML, RX, MDX etc.

At my house cars are for on the road, trucks are for off the road....at least until my knees give out.

My SUV would see mud and trails.


 :iagree: :cheers: Exactly, I expect an SUV to be a proper SUV, not a minivan with a high driving position. Thats what attract me to it, they actually keep offroading on the table at the design meeting.


I bet neither of you do anything that a Forester, or a Santa Fe, or pretty much any other soft-roader couldn't handle.

Even if you do, you are in the minority.

I don't disagree that this SUV is in a category of its own, but there's a reason for that - as fuel costs soar and nobody actually drives truly "off road", the intended purpose becomes moot.

My suggestion was that if this car became mainstream, it could capture more market share from the RX/ML/MDX/etc. crowd.  I was making a constructive suggestion that true off-road capability is becoming less important than a nice ride and fuel economy.

If I ever went truly off-road, I would consider this SUV too and would very much appreciate ACTUAL off-road capable mechanicals...but I don't ever go off-road, and neither would 95% of the demographic who would consider a mid-to-full-size SUV with only 5 seats.

Again, TFLCar's Jeep Week shows that they truly love Jeeps...but they wouldn't ever choose one over their competition unless they went off-road.

Offline JRM

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 466
  • Carma: +18/-65
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2014 VW Passat TSI, 2004 Pontiac Vibe AWD
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2013, 11:47:34 am »
Nice package, but nearly $60,000.00 for a Jeep?? 

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #14 on: February 28, 2013, 11:56:08 am »
I stopped reading after I saw "over 20L/100km"...ouch.

I'm more of a compact or mid-size CUV kinda guy myself - if I decide to start climbing rocks with my car, I'll get a Grand Cherokee...in the meantime, my Forester has more ground clearance and better control on the slippery stuff, it's faster than all but the SRT8, and uses less gas than the Diesel GC.

Different league entirely, I'm aware, but I don't know how anyone could justify that kind of fuel expense these days in a 5-seater.  It seems to me (my opinion) like Chrysler needs to focus on making this vehicle more mainstream to compete against the other premium/luxury SUVs.  Nobody who would be cross shopping with the RX, ML, MDX, etc. care about whether their SUV can climb a rock face.  TFLCar (Roman Mica) said it best (paraphrasing) - the car is great off road, but its tradeoff is that it's just a mess on road.

The V6 or the Diesel are fine for this car.  Save the $ on all those ridiculous off-road options.  If you really need to tow 7,200lbs, you're probably towing something for work - get a truck.

The only reason I'd consider a GC is because it has off road options. I'd strike the GC from my SUV list if off road bits weren't part of the package. No Mall Finder for me...zero interest in an ML, RX, MDX etc.

At my house cars are for on the road, trucks are for off the road....at least until my knees give out.

My SUV would see mud and trails.


 :iagree: :cheers: Exactly, I expect an SUV to be a proper SUV, not a minivan with a high driving position. Thats what attract me to it, they actually keep offroading on the table at the design meeting.


I bet neither of you do anything that a Forester, or a Santa Fe, or pretty much any other soft-roader couldn't handle.

Even if you do, you are in the minority.

I don't disagree that this SUV is in a category of its own, but there's a reason for that - as fuel costs soar and nobody actually drives truly "off road", the intended purpose becomes moot.

My suggestion was that if this car became mainstream, it could capture more market share from the RX/ML/MDX/etc. crowd.  I was making a constructive suggestion that true off-road capability is becoming less important than a nice ride and fuel economy.

If I ever went truly off-road, I would consider this SUV too and would very much appreciate ACTUAL off-road capable mechanicals...but I don't ever go off-road, and neither would 95% of the demographic who would consider a mid-to-full-size SUV with only 5 seats.

Again, TFLCar's Jeep Week shows that they truly love Jeeps...but they wouldn't ever choose one over their competition unless they went off-road.

Sonny boy, those lifted cars wouldnt stand a chance with me.....if I have a 4x4 SUV, its going offroad, its as easy as that. I know that for the large part SUVs are part of a look like a nice purse, a designer lap dog, a custom made suit and an SUV. However, some of us still like having a dual purpose vehicle, the mildest trails Ive been on would make an MDX, Santa Fe, Pilot, Pathfinder pee in their panties. The fact that some of them dont have skidplates tells me enough about clearly how useless most of these "suv's" are.

Offline OliverD

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Carma: +49/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2006 Mazda6 GT wagon, 2007 Mazda3 GT sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #15 on: February 28, 2013, 12:16:38 pm »
Sonny boy, those lifted cars wouldnt stand a chance with me.....if I have a 4x4 SUV, its going offroad, its as easy as that. I know that for the large part SUVs are part of a look like a nice purse, a designer lap dog, a custom made suit and an SUV. However, some of us still like having a dual purpose vehicle, the mildest trails Ive been on would make an MDX, Santa Fe, Pilot, Pathfinder pee in their panties. The fact that some of them dont have skidplates tells me enough about clearly how useless most of these "suv's" are.

Not being off road capable hardly makes them useless. The primary purpose of SUVs has never been to go off-road. For example:



A 2wd Suburban would be pretty much useless off road but that isn't the point.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2013, 12:20:56 pm »
^^^ A 2wd Suburban is useless...... and I bet it would still make it farther with less damage than a lifted car. SUVs used to be something that could make it to the cottage, down to a fishing hole, tow a boat up a slippery/gravel ramp, today, they are basically minivans for people who are too cool for a minivan. Thats why I like the Jeep, it still has its dual purpose character intact.

Offline OliverD

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Carma: +49/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2006 Mazda6 GT wagon, 2007 Mazda3 GT sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2013, 12:39:11 pm »
^^^ A 2wd Suburban is useless...... and I bet it would still make it farther with less damage than a lifted car. SUVs used to be something that could make it to the cottage, down to a fishing hole, tow a boat up a slippery/gravel ramp, today, they are basically minivans for people who are too cool for a minivan. Thats why I like the Jeep, it still has its dual purpose character intact.

You're missing the point. People didn't/don't buy the Suburban to go off road, they bought it to haul people and cargo and to tow. And guess what...those are the same reasons people buy SUVs today.

I'm a big fan of the Grand Cherokee and other SUVs that are off-road capable. But to say that something like an Acura MDX is useless simply isn't true.

Offline Fobroader

  • Car Crazy
  • *****
  • Posts: 14474
  • Carma: +531/-705
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2013, 12:43:56 pm »
No, but a minivan can do what an MDX/Pilot/Q5/Pathfinder very well, in fact, much better than they can do it. But an AWD Sienna will not keep up to a Grand Cherokee. I meant if you plan to use the SUV offroad the car based CUV things would be useless, not in every facet. Hell, none of them will tow as much as a Grand Cherokee either and none have an available diesel engine.

Offline OliverD

  • Drunk on Fuel
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • Carma: +49/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • member
    • View Profile
  • Cars: 2007 Mini Cooper S, 2006 Mazda6 GT wagon, 2007 Mazda3 GT sedan
Re: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2013, 12:57:26 pm »
No, but a minivan can do what an MDX/Pilot/Q5/Pathfinder very well, in fact, much better than they can do it. But an AWD Sienna will not keep up to a Grand Cherokee. I meant if you plan to use the SUV offroad the car based CUV things would be useless, not in every facet. Hell, none of them will tow as much as a Grand Cherokee either and none have an available diesel engine.

Aside from the obvious reasons why people don't buy minivans, the Sienna is the only minivan available with AWD and many SUVs (like the Pilot) have at least a decent towing capacity.