Topic: Test Drive: 2013 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland V8

[Fobroader]

  Seems you and I have a different definition of "decent towing capacity"........for me that starts at about 8000lbs.

[Rupert]

People do buy minivans, in droves even and mostly Dodge by a landslide. Towing capacity is a different requirement for everyone and the Dodge minivan anyway probably has sufficient for many. With a 3500 lb. tow rating and the excelent tow package...pulling a 2000 lb trailer is fine.

[tooscoops]

well, the 150 some odd thousand people who bought the grand cherokee in the states last year must be crazy! [/sarcasm]

the whole suv's are for cargo carrying thing... no they aren't. the new ones (cuv's mainly) are for people who don't want a van (usually for reasons that are all up in their heads). actual suv's are about the capability... thats the "Sport" and "Utility" parts. that utility was never meant to be how many bags you can fit in the back coming from the military road mall. there is no point saying any car is useless though, as they all serve some purpose, be it a fashion accessory, an off-road toy, a form of 'presenting' yourself to the opposite sex... or, the traditional mode of transportation.

the grand cherokee is a true SUV.. if you want a gas miser that sits higher than a wagon and allows for a dog crate in the back, wait for the regular cherokee to come out. (though I'm sure there will be complaints about it as well)

[opg210]

[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.

Is that the big Beaumont hill you're referring to? Used to give me trouble in my Nissan Stanza when I lived there, at the base of it.

[Fobroader]

[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.

Is that the big Beaumont hill you're referring to? Used to give me trouble in my Nissan Stanza when I lived there, at the base of it.

Oh yeah, thats a 4 low and use the winch by the church type of trail 

[Rupert]

Do people realy spend 70 g. to ride over rocks.

[Fobroader]

Do people realy spend 70 g. to ride over rocks.

Some do.....some can spend $15-20K and have a vehicle that eats boulders and rock ledges for breakfast.

[jasonhevans]

Too bad the exterior has been updated from this one to the 2014... the interior improvements and diesel are welcome additions, but this is clearly the better looking version...

[hemusbull]

Over 20 l per 100 kms from Chrysler product which is so complicated with technology...What is the operational cost of this one - is it higher than a Mercedes M series for example?

[Noto]

^^^ 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.

This is the point I was making - 95% of the possible demographic for 5 seater, all weather capable vehicles do NOT go off-road at all.  Most don't tow anything, or maybe a 1500lb boat or trailer.  My suggestion was that if the Grand Cherokee went mainstream and keep the off road mechanicals as optional equipment, it would sell in higher volumes and to a larger demographic.

Your contention that it's the only off-road capable vehicle isn't true - the new Forester can keep up with the Grand Cherokee very well (can tackle 52% grade hills, has more ground clearance, and hill-descent control), and has much better on-road manners (thank you, low-centre of gravity).  Lest I digress into my own personal favourite - the point is, save for a few pocket spots in Canada and the US, very, VERY few actually go truly "off road".  The Grand Cherokee is beautifully appointed inside, the exterior is stylish...but the road manners - its ability to cruise, take low-speed turns, stay planted on winding roads - are diminished in favour of off road prowess that few will take advantage of - and that limits its sale volume.

Your "fishing hole" or cottage roads, as you refer to them, are probably nothing more than gravel roads with a 10% incline.  Fobroader, why must you attack every comment anyone says here?  My suggestion was merely in reference to a way to sell the vehicle in larger volumes - anyone with economic sense would have understood that.

[OliverD]

NoTo: While you're not incorrect, I think that Jeep has probably made the decision maintaining the off-road capabilities of the Grand Cherokee is more valuable in the long run than the potential of increased sales in the short term. The Jeep brand is first and foremost about off-road capabilities. While they have started offering vehicles that aren't particularly good off-road I think it is reasonable to expect the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee to remain off-road oriented.

As for the Forester, well, the Jeep is still far more capable when it really comes down to it. Sure, 99% of buyers won't ever need that capability, but it exists.

[rsyyc]

The fuel economy seems strange.  I have a 2011 Durango RT with the 5.7 HEMI and the older 5 speed auto.  Around the city we get around 16l/100km.  On the highway 11 to 13l/100 km depending on speed, weather etc.  Pulling our 3400lb boat over the Rockies we used 14 to 15l/100 km last summer.  I have never seen anything close to 20l/100km.

[Noto]

NoTo: While you're not incorrect, I think that Jeep has probably made the decision maintaining the off-road capabilities of the Grand Cherokee is more valuable in the long run than the potential of increased sales in the short term. The Jeep brand is first and foremost about off-road capabilities. While they have started offering vehicles that aren't particularly good off-road I think it is reasonable to expect the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee to remain off-road oriented.

As for the Forester, well, the Jeep is still far more capable when it really comes down to it. Sure, 99% of buyers won't ever need that capability, but it exists.

I'm not suggesting that Jeep forego its off road prowess...I'm suggesting that they make the off road 'bits' optional and focus on the rest of the car being a more capable, luxurious on-roader.

And I never doubted that the Jeep is more capable than the Forester, but my point is that if 99% of buyers won't need it, then Subaru's marketing of safe, snow-capable, AWD cars is a stronger marketing point than off road capability.

I think the Jeep Grand Cherokee is a great car - I just think that a bit more work in advertising/packaging would make it more versatile as to segments in which it can compete.

[OliverD]

Which off-road bits are you referring to exactly? All of the trims have optional off-road packages whose contents differ a bit.

[Noto]

Which off-road bits are you referring to exactly? All of the trims have optional off-road packages whose contents differ a bit.

Fair enough...the suggestion I'm making is to have essentially two models; one that is geared towards Off-Roading, and one that is a Luxurious, comfortable counter-option to the likes of the MDX, RX, X5, ML, etc. 

I only say it because every time I hear suburban Toronto folk speak about which 'luxury suv' they want, the Jeep is always thrown away.  The image should be split - not to drop the off-road, but to have two versions.

[tooscoops]

they have too many packages as it is. to offer a "non-off-road" version of each of the four models would be a marketing and sales nightmare. not to mention the hit to the brand image. we have the patriot and compass to take swings at jeeps capability already, no need to take our flagship and give it a swing at the pinata.

and though you may think you speak for the majority, consider that the car you see as an outright winner against the GC sold only 50% as many in north america.

basically, i definitely see where you are coming from and agree with your stance... but its a case of giving the buyers what they THINK they want. just because it may not be the most logical doesn't mean people won't get it.

[Noto]

they have too many packages as it is. to offer a "non-off-road" version of each of the four models would be a marketing and sales nightmare. not to mention the hit to the brand image. we have the patriot and compass to take swings at jeeps capability already, no need to take our flagship and give it a swing at the pinata.

and though you may think you speak for the majority, consider that the car you see as an outright winner against the GC sold only 50% as many in north america.

basically, i definitely see where you are coming from and agree with your stance... but its a case of giving the buyers what they THINK they want. just because it may not be the most logical doesn't mean people won't get it.

Fair enough - but I wasn't suggesting ADDING, I was suggesting separating into just two models, and then have certain options available for each (in a traditional fashion - not huge expenses/4 engine options).

I wasn't trying to speak for the majority - I was just offering another direction that I felt would be economical.

I also never claimed the Forester as an outright winner - I just like it...and North America figures aren't fair for cars that can be sold as 2WD vs AWD standard...and domestic vs import...and different classes...etc.  Either way, I was just using a single comparison that I could speak to having driven one extensively.