Topic: Test Drive: 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 5.7 4X4

[Autos_Editor]

To find an SUV with the same level of refinement, luxury, power and off-road ability as the all-new Jeep Grand Cherokee with the optional 5.7-litre V8, you'd have to start looking at much more expensive luxury SUVs, asserts editor, Greg Wilson.

Read More...

[Jaeger]

Everything I've seen and read of this new ride suggests that it is top notch in pretty much every respect.  Night and day from the cynical shell game they are playing with the "new 200".

Jaeger

[Calbrez]

15% ethanol? Isnt that bad for your car???

[John MacDonald]

I think this vehicle is very much so better than the old one.  My concern is always going to be with reliability.  Jeeps have always been good off road and the Cherokee seemed to be the most luxury and I think this new one takes it up a notch in the luxury department.  That being said if this was my money I was spending I would buy the new Ford Explorer as I think it is the better product and has a bit more attractive price.  If you want a serious off roader then I'd suggest the Toyota 4 Runner as it's the best main stream off roader made today I believe.

[JG]

Contrary to the article, E85 increases consumption, and thus decreases mileage from 22 to 16 (highway) in this vehicle.

[Shnak]

Contrary to the article, E85 increases consumption, and thus decreases mileage from 22 to 16 (highway) in this vehicle.

What's the point of going with E85 if it increases consumption by 37%?!

EDIT: Looked it up myself. According to fueleconomy.gov, it'll cost an extra $150 a year to run it on E85 ($2613 vs $2469), but will also decrease the carbon footprint by a good margin (7.6 vs 10.4 tons/yr of CO2).

So, the question is, will a Grand Cherokee owner will decide to buy more E85 fuel (meaning more trips to the gas station!)to decrease his carbon footprint? Doubtful.

[saint_satan]

Ye can make ethanol in yer back yard.. (hick!).

I think this is move aimed at the international market (?).  A number of Ford's  are E85 and that's the only thing I can think of...

Nice rig.  Now fix the bread and butter middle of the Jeep line-up. 

I see Chryco has done away with the heavy incentives, at least for now, for the 2011s.  So now a trail rated Patriot will cost you as much as a CR-V, Escape, Forester or Rav4 (~$30K).  I wonder how long that will last.

[tortoise]

I rented a previous generation Cherokee for a weekend in May and was very impressed with the way it drove.  The handling was very composed, it cornered flat and was comfortable and smooth cruising at 140 on the  401.

My issues were small cargo capacity in the back and VERY little room in the foot wells.

If the new generation is remarkably better than the one I rented it should sell well for Jeep.

EDIT to add that the rental had the same touch screen stereo and I HATED it.  It required a ton of concentration to make sure you hit the right button as you were driving down the road.  Also navigating through the menus was not overly intuitive.

[Craig S]

As someone else said, Jeep is usually near the bottom of the pile when it come to reliability. It doesn't matter how luxurious their vehicle is if it is in the shop getting fixed often. I also hate the ads for this vehicle which push how amazingly Jeep has designed and built this from the ground up which as we know is complete BS as the majority of the design and some larger components are from MB.

Hopefully the ride and handling are better than the last generation which was way too softly suspended. I rented the previous generation twice on trips and I'll never forget going over bumpy bits of road at lower speeds the the terrible rocking of the vehicle from side to side so badly we almost tossed our lunch.

Overall, I'll pass.

[Dante]

By the numbers, as provided by the article (about 69 cu.ft.), the cargo space behind the front seats is smaller than the CRV/RAV4/Outlander trio which is about 73 cu.ft.
I believe this is due to the high cargo floor and ground clearance.
By the look of it, the cargo behind the rear seats could be also slightly smaller than on those three (35-37 cu.ft.), at least up to the cargo cover level or the top of the rear seats.

[Snowdog]

Contrary to the article, E85 increases consumption, and thus decreases mileage from 22 to 16 (highway) in this vehicle.

What's the point of going with E85 if it increases consumption by 37%?!

EDIT: Looked it up myself. According to fueleconomy.gov, it'll cost an extra $150 a year to run it on E85 ($2613 vs $2469), but will also decrease the carbon footprint by a good margin (7.6 vs 10.4 tons/yr of CO2).

So, the question is, will a Grand Cherokee owner will decide to buy more E85 fuel (meaning more trips to the gas station!)to decrease his carbon footprint? Doubtful.

Also the actual C02 footprint is not reduced. The US ethanol lobby succeeded in stopping the the EPA from including land use in C02 calculations.

So to summarize. Using E85 will produce just as much C02, cost more per mile and reduce your range.

So why are their E85 cars/Trucks? US CAFE credits. They get to count the E85 burning truck like it gets 50MPG. Why? Because of another Lobby by the Big 3 (the only ones who need the credits and make E85 vehicles).

Basically it is all one large pointless Lobby driven boondoggle.

[Shnak]

Contrary to the article, E85 increases consumption, and thus decreases mileage from 22 to 16 (highway) in this vehicle.

What's the point of going with E85 if it increases consumption by 37%?!

EDIT: Looked it up myself. According to fueleconomy.gov, it'll cost an extra $150 a year to run it on E85 ($2613 vs $2469), but will also decrease the carbon footprint by a good margin (7.6 vs 10.4 tons/yr of CO2).

So, the question is, will a Grand Cherokee owner will decide to buy more E85 fuel (meaning more trips to the gas station!)to decrease his carbon footprint? Doubtful.

Also the actual C02 footprint is not reduced. The US ethanol lobby succeeded in stopping the the EPA from including land use in C02 calculations.

So to summarize. Using E85 will produce just as much C02, cost more per mile and reduce your range.

So why are their E85 cars/Trucks? US CAFE credits. They get to count the E85 burning truck like it gets 50MPG. Why? Because of another Lobby by the Big 3 (the only ones who need the credits and make E85 vehicles).

Basically it is all one large pointless Lobby driven boondoggle.

Interesting. What do you mean by excluding land use in CO2 calculations?

[G0dspd]

Maybe the top of the line GC Overland is better equipped than the V6 model but I still can't see how you can put it in the same category as Land Rover, Lexus and Porsche.  I recently saw a review of the V6 model (Pentastar) and they compared the GC to the GMC Acadia and the Toyota highlander.  I think that's more realistic even if the competition doesn't have an updated 5.7 Hemi.

[Erik]

Maybe the top of the line GC Overland is better equipped than the V6 model but I still can't see how you can put it in the same category as Land Rover, Lexus and Porsche.  I recently saw a review of the V6 model (Pentastar) and they compared the GC to the GMC Acadia and the Toyota highlander.  I think that's more realistic even if the competition doesn't have an updated 5.7 Hemi.

I saw the interior of a loaded GC, and it was gorgeous. VERY high quality. Shockingly so, compared to how bad last years, or even my 300C, was.

[safristi]

..I have always tho't of the GRAND CHEROKEE to be a big mother........surprised even tho it has been lengthened on a decent  Merc frame it's still a MID SIZE......with all the goodies it will be  knocking on $60k's door...................ouch............but being able to go Up and down 5inches
 while traversing the Rubicon........ohhh SNAP ..I just woke up...... so wot is it an OFF road Luxury Oxymoronmobile...or a sweet soccer MOM_MOBILE  for the weekend cottage getaways............methinks the later.....and good luck to it.......

[Jaeger]

I saw the interior of a loaded GC, and it was gorgeous. VERY high quality. Shockingly so, compared to how bad last years, or even my 300C, was.

And here I was thinking all along that you didn't care about interior quality. 

Jaeger

[saint_satan]

Saffy:

This thing will rarely see a gravel road. If I had a $60K vehicle, I would be petrified it would get scatched. 

With the horsepower numbers the Pentastar V6 puts out, you wonder why anyone would pony up for the 5.7l V8.  18l/100km in town? Ouch!

[Erik]

Saffy:

This thing will rarely see a gravel road. If I had a $60K vehicle, I would be petrified it would get scatched. 

With the horsepower numbers the Pentastar V6 puts out, you wonder why anyone would pony up for the 5.7l V8.  18l/100km in town? Ouch!

Why? Torque. And tons of it, all over the place. 300 lb/ft's at 1000 rpm, last time I checked mine.

[G0dspd]

With the horsepower numbers the Pentastar V6 puts out, you wonder why anyone would pony up for the 5.7l V8.  18l/100km in town? Ouch!

Why? Torque. And tons of it, all over the place. 300 lb/ft's at 1000 rpm, last time I checked mine.

I agree.  The 3.6 V6 is 290hp @ 6400rpm and 260 lb/ft @ 4800 rpm.  For a full-size SUV, its a little high to get your maximum torque.  The 5-speed transmission is also better suited for the more powerful V8.  I don't know if they sacrificed performance for fuel economy but the transmission doesn't exploit the V6 engine very well ... a 6th gear would have been welcomed.

Like I said before, the biggest selling point of the new GC is the V8.  If you're looking for a SUV with a V6, you will be better served by an Acadia with its direct injected V6 with a 6-spd transmission.

[saint_satan]

Torque - bring back the 4.0 I6!