2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

Interesting Comparison.

6K views 34 replies 19 participants last post by  Champagne InHand 
#1 · (Edited)
I'm still trying to figure out what size the Cherokee is: mid or compact. I came across the dimensions of the original 1993 Grand Cherokee. I compared these to the dimensions in my Cherokee Sales Book. The Grand Cherokee was designed to replace the Cherokee, but the Cherokee still had strong sales: Jeep decided to build both of them. These were similar to the size of the original Explorer, built on the Compact Ranger platform. Back then, they were all considered compact SUVs. Maybe the Renegade is the CUV (Cute Ute!); so the Cherokee is still considered the compact. But, what then about the new Compass and of course the Grand Cherokee? All so similar in size!

Model WB Height Length Width F-Track R-Track Weight

93 GC 105.9" 64.9" 177.2" 70.7" 58.5" 58.8" 4,218 lbs.

KL-TH 107.0" 67.8"* 182.0" 74.9" 63.5" 63.5" 4,028 lbs.

*Height includes the roof rails.

When the Cherokee first hit the market back in 2014, I was thinking that it was so small. The Explorer (I had 2, a 94 EB and a 96 Sport) and Grand Cherokee seemed to be much bigger. But the numbers do not lie. Back in 1993, the GC was considered large in its advertising and it could be built with a Chrysler 360 ci V8 with a 4 speed auto!

Final thought. These are so close in size, we should have the room to stuff in a 360 ci V8! >:D
 
See less See more
#3 ·
I don't have any numbers to go by, but just by visual comparison to other SUVs on thr market, I would call it a compact SUV. On the larger end of compact maybe. It certainly looks bigger than a Ford Escape. We had a 2010 Chevy Equinox we just sold, and that was solidly a Mid-size. And it was significantly bigger than my Cherokee, inside and out.

Comparing one vehicle to another vehicle 20+ years old is not really an apples-to-apples comparison. Certain makes and models have changed a lot in that time, due to different market demands: changes in comsumer preference, competition with other vehicles in their respective classes, and brand recognition. And they all evolved together, so you kind of have to compare vehicles relative to their present-day counterparts, not relative to a particular vehicle's own history. What may have been considered 'mid-size' 25 years ago may be relatively small by today's standards.

As a sort-of side note, look at a Corolla or an Accord today vs what each of them was in 1990. Different in every way. Bigger, fancier, higher price point, and marketing to a different demographic. As a car like that creeps toward a different segment of the market, the manufacturers end up having to make a new model to fill the hole where those cars once were. It's an interesting little phenomenon.

Sorry if I got off topic, or if I missed your point altogether!

2014 Cherokee Latitude V6 AD1
 
#4 ·
I had a WK2. Where your size difference is noticeable is width. The only part of my TH that I'm not a fan of is electrically assisted steering. The WK2 drive like a tame tank on long rides. When you folded the back seat down the headrests flipped down on their own. As far as usable cargo space the TH held all 4 wheels from the WK2, which took up almost the same room in the WK2. You just have to think of the Cherokee as one of those houses that has all the little things figured out to make it TARDIS like and with great off road capabilities.

Sitting 3 abreast in the TH rear seats is nowhere near as roomy as in the WK2, but I don't need that. I love that the front seat has flip up seat storage and it folds flat.

It also is much easier to park in a space designed for a smaller car, but I try to steer clear or 2 doors with long doors, and kid mobiles with 4 fours either way.

The WK2 definitely had more head space in the cargo and some extra room when not folded down. The hound notices and requires the seats be laid flat.

I miss the rear window opening but I'm pretty sure that features gone on new WK2s anyhow. The WK2 had a better backup camera system but only by a bit. That or the TH just gets dirtier easier.

All told the WK2 was another transport for people but for those not ever considering a 3rd row.

Both are pretty fun on and off road but the TH is less abusive at slower speeds. I do like the TH front seats better. Where I liked the middle consul of the WK2 better.

It's just very minor differences. You can add things like lining in compartments and the like to make the TH just as comfy.

Had I chose the comfort and convenience and luxury packages the WK2 would be in par with all the higher tech stuff. Now that I don't haul teens or their gear there's not much I miss enough ever to consider the huge coin differences in prices.

I don't miss the sunroof in anyway, shape or form. I think acceleration is comprable and gas mileage much better.

The WK2 was a champ in emergency maneuvering because it didn't have the electrical assist steering.

I do hate seeing them push so many KLs out of dealerships but perhaps in the future this will help finding salvaged parts and maybe some mod companies might start making more accessories for off roaming and such.

The SRT was nice if that was your thing. I've had motorcycles for that need for speed.

I doubt I would ever buy a Renegade though. This is about as small and thin as I want to go. Weirdly enough I doubt I would ever buy a JKU just because the prices are ridiculous as well as bad in gas and some other things. I don't like sitting so close to the firewalls etc. overall the TH fills my needs just fine. When looking through the lot during a recall wiper fix, I had zero urge to try a beauty 75th Annie WK2 in Overland build. Or the JKUs. That's a first for me. I usually like test drives if most things. The TH leaves me quite satisfied.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#5 ·
The Liberty was actually the replacement for the XJ Cherokee. Other than in North America, it was even called a Cherokee and not a Liberty. There was a thought that many would like a slightly larger SUV and Jeep needed something to rival the popular Explorer in the mid-size market. The Grand was introduced for this.
 
#6 ·
I would agree with the above posts mentioning vehicle sizes have increased, some more than others.

These photos show a good comparison with my 2003 GC and 2016 KL.

The GC seems to have a lot more space inside, mostly in the cargo area, but I wouldn't necessarily complain about it on my KL.
 

Attachments

#8 ·
Nice Debate. Lots of good information.



Awesome pictures. Pictures don't lie! In my OP, I was just amazed at how close in size the original GC is to my TH. The Sales Brochure says the KL (any model) will hold 3 adults comfortably! So much for the rear seat. :surprise:

I did have a 2003 Liberty Renegade and a 1999 GC Limited. I loved that Liberty. I never should have sold it. :frown: I traded it for a 2006 Commander. I think that I would still be driving the Commander had my wife not been diagnosed with Stage IV Cancer. :crying:
 
#7 ·
So coming from a 2015 4Runner (midsize - Sequioa bigger, Rav4 smaller), I would say my Trailhawk is definitely a compact. Lost a lot of room in cabin, lost a lot of room in second row, and lost about 1/2 of my cargo space (in all directions - width, depth, height). I actually appreciate the more intimate interior!
 
#11 ·
Back in 1993, the GC was considered large in its advertising and it could be built with a Chrysler 360 ci V8 with a 4 speed auto!

Final thought. These are so close in size, we should have the room to stuff in a 360 ci V8! >:D
5.2L 318 ci was available from 1993 to 1998. 5.9L 360 was only available with the 1998 5.9 Limited. Quite a 4x4 hotrod in it's day.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dhh3 and Duke2015
#12 ·
Ok, here it is, the KL is a compact because of it's interior space but, it's exterior is mid size.

Also the Equinox is NOT Mid size!!! I had a 2011 GMC Terrain prior to the KL and only the outside, just like the KL was midsize but, the interior was compact. Only the older Equinoxes 2005 - 2009 were mid size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xinarin13 and dhh3
#13 ·
Now, the Debate becomes lively! I just read that Dodge is adding the Durango to its SRT family. So, Jeep should build an Cherokee SRT, IMHO! The Dart was in line to get an SRT package; give it to Jeep.

Chevy has the Suburban, Tahoe, Traverse, Equinox, Captiva (Saturn Vue with a bowtie) and Traxx.

Ford has Expedition L, Expedition, Explorer, Edge, and Escape.

Market saturation. Wears me out.
 
#14 ·
I believe the "SRT" moniker is going to be exclusive to Dodge, which is why the 2018 Grand Cherokee previously known as an SRT will be referred to as a Trackhawk. I'm surprised there hasn't been a rendering of a performance oriented KL, likely just a matter of time.
 
#19 ·
I would consider the KL a compact-to-mid SUV quite honestly. It's not really so small to be compact in the traditional sense (That's the Renegade, Mini Countryman, Fiat 500X, etc). I'd put it more in the mid-size, but on the smaller end of the mid-size. The Grand Cherokee of today I'd put it clearly in the mid-size range, and then you have vehicles like the Chevy Tahoe, GMC Acadia, Chevy Traverse, Dodge Durango, Ford Explorer, which I'd put more in the full-size SUV. Now, things like the Surburban, Yukon XL, or the new Expedition? I'd call those the DAYUM-size SUVs.

And yes, cars have certainly gotten bigger over the years. Take a look at Mini for example. My R53 Mini from 2005 is 143.9in, or just shy of 12ft. The current gen Mini, the F56, is 150in now. So it's grown half a foot since it's reincarnation in 2002. But it's still one of the car vehicles in its class, so despite that it's currently 2 1/2 feet longer than the Classic Mini, by today's standards, it's still rather mini in size. You might suggest the Smart car, or Scion IQ are today's minis, but those I'd consider todays microcars, like the Messerschmit, BMW Isetta, Peel P50, etc, were back in their day.

So not only have car proportions have gotten bigger, but food portions, like most Americans' waistlines, have gotten larger as well.

Everything has gotten larger...well, maybe not everything. Some of those folks who these big honkin' trucks and SUVs might be compensating for something.
 
#21 ·
I find that strange in ways, because there are larger cars out there with not so good rear leg room, and smaller cars with lots of rear leg room (and vice versa of course). I always remember the Grand Cherokees of years past being notorious for having piss-poor rear leg room, given the size of the vehicle. And yet, some smaller vehicles of the time having more leg room than it.

I know it's probably about passenger room as a whole, and not one particular area, but I still find that weird. Obviously, the KL has great leg room (both front and rear), but its cargo area is not as big as lets say the older GC, which subsequently had poor rear leg room. So it's obviously a compromise I guess.
 
#22 ·
GMC just introduced a smaller Acadia, but it is selling it alongside the large Acadia. The 2018 Traverse seems to share the platform of this new smaller Acadia. Buick is supposedly importing one from China, smaller than the Enclave. Weird.
 
#23 ·
It is. I think it's even more weird how we now have so many choices of different marques, models, trims, options, etc. It becomes quite difficult figuring out what you want. When I was shopping, I made it clear what I wanted at first: 4WD/AWD, higher ground clearance, and 5-doors. I also did not want the vehicle to be too big (so I could still fit it into my garage stall at my apartment). I found out my Mom's WK GC would just fit with a few inches to spare, so I knew the baseline I had. A vehicle the same size, or smaller. The KL fit those first four items by default. Then I said I had to have the cold weather package, but as I found out (and posted this in the "How you found your KL" thread), you can have heated seats, but no cold weather package (if you have the leather seat option). I also knew I wanted tow package as a future-proofing option (and also having the beefier cooling for both engine and transmission).

Obviously, I had other choices in mind, and I did factor in the issues of the KLs early on, as well as the fact that FCA doesn't have the greatest track record right now in terms of customer satisfaction, and reliability (In Consumer Reports 2017 worst cars, I think 4 out of the top 10 are FCA). I also considered that my Dad, Mom, and Brother have all had Jeeps over the years with good luck, so that was factored in).

In the end, I basically went the over-engineered option, went with the TH, got pretty much every option, minus the technology package, and engine block heater), and of course used. And with the right looks, color, and overall feel, it was what fit me best. :grin:


But choosing a car these days is like trying to find a movie to watch on Netflix. In the end, most can't find what they like, and go back to their normal lives. :laugh:
 
#25 ·
It's amazing how much more power they are getting out of smaller motors now.

I just looked it up, that 5.2l V8 was rated at 230 hp @ 4,100rpm and 295 lb-ft of torque @ 3,000rpm
The KL 3.2L V6 is rated at 271 hp @ 6,750rpm and 239 lb-ft of torque @ 4,400rpm

All told, much of that power is just coming allowing it to rev up higher. And the 5.2l probably FELT quicker with the higher torque at lower RPM. But still, the current V6 is looking pretty good compared to the 20y.o. V8 design.
 
#26 ·
My 2004 WJ has the 4.7L HO. It's rated 265hp with premium, but since premium is "recommended" and not required, I have always run 87 in it. I figure that costs me ~10 hp, but I have no idea for sure. It feels SOOO much stronger off the line, but at highway speed, the Trailhawk pulls every bit as good. I've seen 0-60 times for V6s everywhere from high 6 second range to 8.0 seconds. I've seen as low a 6.7-6.9 for 4.7L HO WJs. Mine has run a 15.10 1/4 mile @ 90-91 at my local track (had premium fuel in it that day)

I've read in other Jeep circles that the '98 5.9L ZJ put down at the rear wheels on dynos what it was factory rated at the flywheel (245hp?) suggesting it was underrated. Maybe those were "factory freaks." Who knows. They sure were sharp looking. Love me some ZJ!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhh3
#30 ·
Any GM comparisons to the FCA line up are good and pointless. The Equinox and Terrain lost their V6 option and got slightly larger and cannot offroad at all, the Encore and Trax are basically the same, and still cannot offroad. The China made Envision was soo pointless, the only reason GM brought it here was to test if a Chinese made GM would sell so they can try to transfer manufacturing overseas for cheaper production, it's also a 4 cyl and highly bloated so it is underpowered and cannot offroad with AWD. The Acadia came out with and Offroad themed All Terrain version which is all show and no go for offroad, the Chevy Traverse is the same in the High Country version and has a 4 cyl option. The Tahoe and the Yukon still have a Z71 offroad package and the same for the Suburban and Yukon XL.

Sooo, inclusion, if you want a GM SUV that can go offroad you either spend over 50K and get not so great gas mileage or not get a SUV and by a truck.

I'd say Jeep is kicking the crap out of GM for versatility and it don't matter the size as now all Jeep SUV's offer a Trailhawk version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Champagne InHand
#32 · (Edited)
Just having gone through replacing the wife's Chrysler 200 this is an interesting thread to me. We did tons of comparison's. She wanted rid of the 200 to get herself up further in the air as with all the suv's on the road it was getting tougher all the time to see around them in the 200. But she didn't want to have two cherokees. And we had always driven minivans before the 200 so that's what we started looking at. But the newer minivans seemed really excessively big as it's only her and I now with kids all gone, but occasionally have a grandkid or two to haul around. The only real disappointment we have had on our Cherokee is the lack of room for stuff especially with both seats up. After lots of searching, comparing, driving, ended up with something I had competely bypassed for years, a Dodge Journey. We were really taken by it's room and comfort. Way more practical usable room behind the second seat and very comfortable ride and smooth driving machine. Not 4x4 though, but tons of Cherokee's in our area are only fwd. Our Journey is at least awd which is enough for snow conditions and it doesn't need to go offroad. Gas mileage sucks compared to our Cherokee, (journey so far looks like about 26-27 on the road and 21-22 local) but Cherokee is 173hp 2.5 4 cyl and Journey is 283 hp 3.6 pentstar. No 9 speed which I was thinking I would really miss, but has 6 speed which really surprises me. With the 3.6 6 speeds seem to be plenty. So now as much as we like the Cherokee if someone wants similar but more room and isn't planning to need 4x4 I suggest looking at the lowly Journey. It's a sleeper. And it has much more room inside than our previous grand cherokee's too but not nearly as big and bulky as a minivan.
 
#33 ·
I totally agree with you concerning the Journey. I bought a 2014 Crossroad right after they came out, and loved it. When I purchased the Journey, I really wanted a TH; but I didn't want to suffer through the teething problems. 2 years later, I found out that Mango Tango Pearl Coat was no longer being offered, so I had to jump and get the TH 1 year early. I still made out trading the Journey. My plan was to drive the Journey for 3 years, and then get the TH. BTW, my Journey was CopperHead Pearl Coat and I actually purchased it for the color! Real close to Mango Tango Pearl Coat
 
#35 ·
The TH in mango tango was what had me trade in the black WK2. I'm pretty happy they d/c'd the MT. I feel quite happy to have snagged one last January.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: dhh3
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top