Topic: Test Drive: 2014 Jeep Cherokee

[Autos_Editor]

Jeep Cherokee earned 'Canadian Utility Vehicle of the Year' award with leading value, refinement and feature content.
Read More...

[Benhaze]

It is good to see that the press positive reviews continue after the product novelty/controversy has fainted away somewhat.

[Rupert]

I suppose that $40,000 after taxes would be better put here than into a mid size sedan. Nice to see Jeep getting credit for quality and the Pentastar engine. Nice one.

[Noto]

I have to admit it - I'm not usually (ahem, ever) a fan of a chryfi product, but I cannot deny the attractiveness of the Cherokee. I do like the available power (and no turbo lag/concern about fuel economy/premium fuel issues), I like the interior comfort, I like the distinctive look, and I like the offroad chops (especially in Trailhawk trim).

But I will be constructive in my criticisms that stop me from considering it (in order of importance):
1) the 9-speed auto. It gear hunts. The paddle shifters take a full 2 seconds to kick in. If you use the paddles to force the autobox into 9th, it'll fall back into 8th or 7th after 10s.  Fuel economy tends not to be any better than in a VCT or an 8-speed.
2) packaging. This is a small vehicle, mostly competing against the Tiguan or Crosstrek (for size in particular). There is a decided focus on interior room and not on cargo flexibility. It's not wide, and I could not fit a set of golf clubs across the back. That's concerning to me.
3) nose-heavy (esp with the V6) and I felt it during the drive
4) for its price, it still feels/looks cheaper than it should. Less apparent in the base trims with a few packages offered, but as Pritch points out, the blanks/dummy covers do remind you that you could have bought more.
5) Resale value for Jeep is probably the higher of all Chryfis, but I don't think this one will hold upquite as well. Certainly not CRV, Rav4, or Forester level.

[EV-Light]

  40k?....people buying these fully loaded Jeeps will be upside down in their loans for many years.

[aquadorhj]

40k?....people buying these fully loaded Jeeps will be upside down in their loans for many years.

yeah, but that goes with pretty much any car with long term loan nowdays.

[blotter]

I love this Jeep but I never took it out for a spin.
If we didn't decide on a truck, this was at the top of the list and since we decided the truck configuration was best for us, test driving it was pointless.   

So I can debate much of NoTo's post!
but I can comment on these:

a) packaging. This is a small vehicle, mostly competing against the Tiguan or Crosstrek (for size in particular). There is a decided focus on interior room and not on cargo flexibility. It's not wide, and I could not fit a set of golf clubs across the back. That's concerning to me.

I agree the cargo area seems small.  That was somewhat of a concern for us as well. 
However, if you're going golfing, unless you're 4 people put the back seats down 
Now if you're 4 people and thinking everyone's golf bags might fit, you've got the wrong Jeep (you'll need a Cherokee) 

b) for its price, it still feels/looks cheaper than it should.

really?  I found the vehicle extremely nice.  The interior looks and FEELS more expensive than say the RAV 4
the exterior seemed solid and well built.   The door open well and close with a solid feel (something that can't be said of the Fiat)   Sitting inside and walking around the Jeep is what really peaked my original interest because I thought to myself, wow, looks like they really did their homework and went full out with this.

while I didn't drive it, the transmission and reliability would be a big question mark for me.
buying one would be all about if I'm willing to take the chance in finding out.


I'll definately give Jeeps full marks on this attempt.  I'm seeing many more on the roads and have grown to like the looks more and more.   

[tooscoops]

But I will be constructive in my criticisms that stop me from considering it (in order of importance):
1) the 9-speed auto. It gear hunts. The paddle shifters take a full 2 seconds to kick in. If you use the paddles to force the autobox into 9th, it'll fall back into 8th or 7th after 10s.  Fuel economy tends not to be any better than in a VCT or an 8-speed.
2) packaging. This is a small vehicle, mostly competing against the Tiguan or Crosstrek (for size in particular). There is a decided focus on interior room and not on cargo flexibility. It's not wide, and I could not fit a set of golf clubs across the back. That's concerning to me.
3) nose-heavy (esp with the V6) and I felt it during the drive
4) for its price, it still feels/looks cheaper than it should. Less apparent in the base trims with a few packages offered, but as Pritch points out, the blanks/dummy covers do remind you that you could have bought more.
5) Resale value for Jeep is probably the higher of all Chryfis, but I don't think this one will hold upquite as well. Certainly not CRV, Rav4, or Forester level.

Fair enough and everyone will have their issues...

1)i'm not a huge fan of the 9 speed either.. but i find with the 3.2 it works just fine and is smooth and even adds some pep... as for the paddle shifters.. maybe they aren't working because it doesn't have them. grand cherokee has them, but that's the 8-speed, and the 200 has them with the 9.

2)it's definitely smaller. not up for debate. room is at a premium... they aren't trying to say it's bigger than any others.

3)i find it well balanced and i can't think of anyone else having that issue either.. but the 3.2 is a big enough engine, so not crazy to think that.

4)cherokee feels more expensive than it's competition. normally i would say, "i feel that..." but in this case, it's not really an opinion. when everyone else agrees, i'd say it's as close to fact as you can get. is it audi interior?.. no. but rav4/crv/other competition... it smokes it. the dummie buttons... come on... we are going to start complaining that there are too many options available? because that's what we are doing... options with buttons need places to go. don't want it to look lacking, then spend the big bucks and get it with those options.

5)only have a year, so hard to tell.. but year old models are right in line, if not more expensive for the jeeps. if we are talking 10 year old ones.. maybe... but for the usual 3-5 year old resale, these will be shockingly close.

[Fobroader]

$40K for a Jeep.....

[tooscoops]

lets not forget a laredo grand cherokee starts at 42+... with cloth, ugly wheels, etc.

the 40 grand cherokee has as many toys as a 100,000 german piece of metal. i love the big brother, but put me in a trailhawk loaded cherokee rather than a base grand... not until limited or overland is the grand really a nice truck. and then you are looking at over 50. big difference.

[Noto]

I agree the cargo area seems small.  That was somewhat of a concern for us as well. 
However, if you're going golfing, unless you're 4 people put the back seats down 
Now if you're 4 people and thinking everyone's golf bags might fit, you've got the wrong Jeep (you'll need a Cherokee) 

b) for its price, it still feels/looks cheaper than it should.

really?  I found the vehicle extremely nice.  The interior looks and FEELS more expensive than say the RAV 4
the exterior seemed solid and well built.   

I can (and often do) fit 4 guys and their full sets of clubs in the trunk of the corolla...so yes I can take taller items in the Cherokee but not as much as a compact car.  I can (and often do) take 4 guys and their clubs in our 2011 Forester.  Look, the Cherokee can't be faulted for choosing a particular size, but it's an issue for me.

I should clarify my 'cheap' comment:
It doesn't look like a $40k car in top trims (short of the trailhawk). At $35k, my 2011 Forester XT had navi, leather, a hood scoop, etc.  Nowadays, features don't look fancy because $9,998 Nissan micras have some.  But I think little touches can look fancy.  LED DRLs tend to help, but the lack of a moonroof on a 2014 $35k car hurts.  Dummy blanks hurt.  Tall, but short cars look cheap.  The Tiguas and Encore look cheap to me.  The Crosstrek looks cheap to me.  Hard to say what to fix, but I think the Cherokee maybe needs 2" more in length and a non-CRV-like rear end.

So doesn't look cheap cheap, but looks as expensive as a juke to me.

If I had to replace the Fozzie, I would consider the Cherokee as my #2 except for the 9-speed.

[EV-Light]

$40K for a Jeep.....

this is where my $40k would go...

[tooscoops]

fair enough.

though as we conclude every time this type of thing comes up, to compare the top of the line of one car to the entry level of another is not a fair comparison...

so q5, 2.0 base... no additional options or packages... 41900 plus freight, pdi, etc... still a good car, but hard to compare that.

rdx... 43564 starting price (minus a cash incentive for purchase)

mxc... 41790 starting price including freight.


so while, sure... your money could go there, many people won't even be looking at those cars if the cherokee is their first choice... especially since as you've proven, people look at the "starting at" prices... which on the cherokee is 25490 including freight.

[EV-Light]

fair enough.

though as we conclude every time this type of thing comes up, to compare the top of the line of one car to the entry level of another is not a fair comparison...

so q5, 2.0 base... no additional options or packages... 41900 plus freight, pdi, etc... still a good car, but hard to compare that.

rdx... 43564 starting price (minus a cash incentive for purchase)

mxc... 41790 starting price including freight.


so while, sure... your money could go there, many people won't even be looking at those cars if the cherokee is their first choice... especially since as you've proven, people look at the "starting at" prices... which on the cherokee is 25490 including freight.

The Cherokee is a good value at $25, even at low $30s...but as soon as you step into the Limited/Trailhawk with the V6 it gets too pricey...the value leader for me is the North with a V6 - not sure if that's the best selling package though.

[Benhaze]

lets not forget a laredo grand cherokee starts at 42+... with cloth, ugly wheels, etc.

the 40 grand cherokee has as many toys as a 100,000 german piece of metal. i love the big brother, but put me in a trailhawk loaded cherokee rather than a base grand... not until limited or overland is the grand really a nice truck. and then you are looking at over 50. big difference.

 

Very well said.

NoTo: saw your last post but I still do not agree with you. The Cherokee has a top notch interior and its quality certainly cannot be used against it. I also have issues with its limited cargo capability but I would be ready to overlook that in the case of the Trailhawk model due to its off-road capabilities.

[tooscoops]

enjoy that you like how it was said... the "40 grand cherokee" is quite poor word choice... meant $40,000 Jeep Cherokee...

whoops. glad you understood!

[Benhaze]

fair enough.

though as we conclude every time this type of thing comes up, to compare the top of the line of one car to the entry level of another is not a fair comparison...

so q5, 2.0 base... no additional options or packages... 41900 plus freight, pdi, etc... still a good car, but hard to compare that.

rdx... 43564 starting price (minus a cash incentive for purchase)

mxc... 41790 starting price including freight.


so while, sure... your money could go there, many people won't even be looking at those cars if the cherokee is their first choice... especially since as you've proven, people look at the "starting at" prices... which on the cherokee is 25490 including freight.

The Cherokee is a good value at $25, even at low $30s...but as soon as you step into the Limited/Trailhawk with the V6 it gets too pricey...the value leader for me is the North with a V6 - not sure if that's the best selling package though.

A Q5 with Navigation is 48k + taxes. Not seeing your point here. And the Q5 infotainment needs a badly a refresh. A Q5 with the minimum options I want would be (well) be over $50k.

[Benhaze]

enjoy that you like how it was said... the "40 grand cherokee" is quite poor word choice... meant $40,000 Jeep Cherokee...

whoops. glad you understood!

LOL I know Jeeps quite well so yes I could understood your point.

[Noto]

Suffice it for me to say this:

I am impressed greatly with the latest Chryfi offerings.  I will even go so far as to say that the Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and 200 are so good that they have swayed my opinion as much as would be necessary to have fixer like a Toyota.

I can't quite figure out how to express what I am trying to say about "cheap" so I retract all and say that if the Cherokee came with a Subaru or Honda CVT, I'd have a tough time saying no to it.

[Benhaze]

Don't forget the Chrysler 300 (2011/+). I think it was the first one (few months before the JC ) .

Your last comment would make Chrysler employees who brought these vehicles to market very happy.