2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

Jeep Cherokee competition

5M views 86 replies 53 participants last post by  TedB 
#1 ·
What does the new Cherokee compete with? If its a baby Grand Cherokee that would mean its along the size of most compact SUVs?

Are we talking about Ford Escape, Rav4, CX-5, CRV size?
 
#43 ·
We are looking at the Acura RDX w/tech pkg and either a loaded Trailhawk/Limited (no tech pkg). I really like the Jeep better, but it's hard to ignore Acura's stellar reliability and resale value.
 
#52 ·
Wouldn't the Cherokee 4x4 Limited be a better comparison to an Acura RDX than the Trailhawk model? An RDX doesn't really have much in the way of off road capability; it's made for on-road comfort mostly, which is pretty much true for the Limited Cherokee as well, except the latter has the body style and features of the Trailhawk to accommodate the occasional off road experience. For instance, as the only trim level that offers the bi-xenon headlights, it's clear the Limited is intended to compete with luxury brands.

(And for what it's worth, I don't think the interior of the RDX—luxury as it may be—holds a candle to a fully loaded Cherokee. The RDX feels like a souped up CR-V to me, and has a lot of the same equipment, like same little LCD displays and such for climate control and non-touch screen display, where Jeep took it totally to the next level and digitized as much of the instrumentation as it could. I mean come on, it's 2014 and Acura is trying to push a luxury car that's scrolling the name of the song that's playing looking like it's a calculator screen?)


It seems to me that people think the Trail Hawk is the top of the line version, and I don't think that's really true, is it? The TH is for people who are okay with sacrificing some ride quality on streets because they spend the majority of their time off roading. I test drove a TH after my Limited and the ride is definitely different. I figured to get the best of both worlds, without the intention of off roading on a regular basis, that's what the Limited is for... and I'd think that holds true especially since the other car you considered was the RDX.

I hope this doesn't turn into a whole lot of backlash about which version is better, cuz that has nothing to do with it. I'm saying if you're going top of the line for road comfort, the Limited is made for that purpose and would be comparable to other luxury SUVs. A top of the line TH would be comparable to something like the FJ or XTerra in terms of capability, but blows it and everything else away when it comes to interior comfort, fit, and finish, which is where Jeep really hit it out of the park with the Cherokee in my opinion, no matter what trim level you chose. What are people's thoughts on that? I just think an Acura RDX to the Limited Cherokee is more of a 1:1 comparison rather than the Acura RDX up against the TH Cherokee, even with all the options, because the SUVs are intended for different road applications entirely in the case of the TH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaybat
#44 ·
With tariffs on Korean imports dropping perhaps the Hyundai Sante Fe or Tucson will be in the running for Canadians. We will still look at the Ford Escape though as there are just more Ford dealerships in N. Ont. than any import. Also more Chrysler/Jeep dealers.
 
#48 · (Edited)
That's why I included it in the second (Limited) competition group. Few people would spend that kind of money and even try serious off-roading.

I do think that it would be really interesting if someone ran a comparative Cherokee - Evoque test. Having test driven the Evoque, I think many would be very surprized by the results! An interesting thing is that the Evoque also has a 9 spd transmission - wonder how that is performing?
 
#69 ·
Pretty much the same--manufactured at two different places. ZF's plant is in Graycourt, SC (near Greenville) and Chrysler builds theirs in Kokomo, Indiana. Chrysler may make minor changes as you will read below.


According to Mike Kirk, Chrysler’s director of axle, driveline, and manual transmissions, there were two main reasons for Chrysler’s changes to the ZF automatics.
First, Kokomo was already set up to build transmissions, with its own tooling and robotics, which are far different from those used by ZF. Some changes were made to accommodate the design of the transmission to the equipment and methods used successfully for many years at Kokomo.

In addition, Chrysler needs far more of the transmissions than ZF plans to make. Design choices that make sense for production of 50,000 transmissions a year may not make sense for production of 200,000 per year. To pump out the number of transmissions Chrysler will need, some changes had to be made.
Mr. Kirk said that the partnership with ZF had been mutually productive; while Chrysler owns the intellectual property of any changes they make to the transmissions, they do keep ZF informed. Chrysler can patent any of their changes and methods, including the software and controls, and has some internal motivation to improve the transmissions and their production methods to maintain balance with ZF.
Standards for both manufacturers are high; and both ZF and Chrysler use the same end-of-line test centers, driven by the same software.
 
#58 · (Edited)
I find the Cherokee rather unique and in one trim or another capable of competing with a broad range of vehicles. While I don't own one yet, my limited first hand impressions come after spending considerable time considering other brands and even other Jeeps.

I've seriously cross shopped the Subarus and Xterra on one end of the price spectrum to the Grand Cherokee, Land Rover LR2 and Evoque on the other end. I checked out the 4Runner too. The Jeep Grand Cherokee is still in the running. I'm a little worried the Cherokee is a little too small, but I'm trying to go as small as I can get away with even if it means I need to get a trailer to help out sometimes.

But anyway, for a driver who spends 90 percent of the time running errands, driving business associates and clients around Orange County, CA most of the week. But then a few days a month, lives some of my most cherished moments in places that only rugged roads go, I find a well appointed Cherokee, like it's big brother the Grand Cherokee, very versatile and attractive. But most importantly, both the Cherokee and Grand Cherokee are very modern and well engineered for this sort of mission. Yes, they are reasonably capable in rough weather conditions and on rough roads. They have the option of armor and real low range capability for off road too. Yet they're comfortable, stylish and user friendly for daily driving. In some ways I believe the well appointed 4x4 Cherokee most closely competes with other Jeeps and the Land Rover Evoque. I would call the Cherokee TH or 4x4 LT a poor man's Land Rover Evoque if I weren't trying to avoid class designations and offense to the Jeep brand name. Nissan should consider trying to do the same sort of thing with their dated Xterra.
 
#59 ·
My Personal Shortlist

As I was researching my Chrysler Pacifica replacement, I came up with a short list that I took into the Chicago Auto Show:
Jeep Cherokee
Nissan Rogue
Buick Encore
Mazda CX-5
Kia Sportage
Nissan Murano

I dropped the bottom 3 after the auto show: Murano wasn't small enough, didn't have markedly better gas mileage, and would be too pricey for the trim level I'd want. Sorento styling was just blah and the interior felt cheap. I didn't like the front end of the CX-5 and the driver's seat was horribly uncomfortable for me.

I took test drives of the top 3 and eliminated the Encore - adorably cute car, but too small for our needs.

Took a 2nd test drive of the Rogue. Read countless reviews & message boards posts, and went back & forth w/ pros & cons between the Rogue & Cherokee. Finally decided on the Cherokee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeteB and Jaybat
#61 ·
As I was researching my Chrysler Pacifica replacement, I came up with a short list that I took into the Chicago Auto Show:
Jeep Cherokee
Nissan Rogue
Buick Encore
Mazda CX-5
Kia Sportage
Nissan Murano

I dropped the bottom 3 after the auto show: Murano wasn't small enough, didn't have markedly better gas mileage, and would be too pricey for the trim level I'd want. Sorento styling was just blah and the interior felt cheap. I didn't like the front end of the CX-5 and the driver's seat was horribly uncomfortable for me.

I took test drives of the top 3 and eliminated the Encore - adorably cute car, but too small for our needs.

Took a 2nd test drive of the Rogue. Read countless reviews & message boards posts, and went back & forth w/ pros & cons between the Rogue & Cherokee. Finally decided on the Cherokee.
Nice analysis. I am not a fan, but like how they redesigned the Rogue and, for those who need it, it does have the 3rd row availability. What it (and other similar competitors) don't have is the heft and the poise of the Cherokee (I will follow this up with a separate weight analysis). I also feel that the way the Cherokee was designed was top down (i.e. fully loaded TH and Limited first, and then equipment removed to make Sport and Latitude). the competition feels like they were designed with the lowest price point and trim in mind with the higher trims getting add-ons, and I think that this shows.
 
#60 ·
Wow @keladewig my search was almost an exact replica of your own! Coming from a Murano, I was set on the Rogue and wasn't going to even look at anything else, until I test drove it. I was not thrilled and started researching everything else in the same class. Finally purchased a Cherokee Limited after months of consideration.
 
#62 ·
Excellent analysis PeteB! Yes, each time I looked at the top of the line Rogue, it felt like a nicely dressed economy car. Nothing wrong with that and the good gas mileage in the Rogue is a definite plus, but it lacked something intangible that you just hit on the head.
 
#72 ·
In the end, I think this was my tipping point too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaybat
#63 ·
Competitive Weight Analysis

The auto press often criticizes that the Cherokee is much heavier than the competition. But is it really?

I guess it depends on what you feel the real competition is! The chart below says it all I think (note that these are all the same SUV class size-wise).

Curb weights:

Compact SUVs
Nissan Rogue – 3,532 lbs
Ford Escape – 3,515 lbs
Honda CR-V – 3,426 lbs


Jeep Cherokee – 4,044 lbs


Luxury SUVs
Audi Q5 – 4,079 lbs
BMW X3 – 4,068 lbs
Mercedes GLK – 4,123 lbs

There is a reason why the Cherokee is 500 lbs heavier than the mainstream crossover SUV competition (solidity, torsion, sound attenuation, etc.), and on par weight-wise with the luxury SUVs. And it’s not like the luxury makers don’t care about efficiency and lower weight!
 
#64 ·
@PeteB: It is that 'solidity' that finally sold me on the Cherokee. I was in the middle of my second Rogue test drive when a large truck drove by in the next lane. When I felt the sway of the Rogue, I knew I'd miss the heft of my old Murano (along with the advantages of the V6 engine in that car) and knew it would bother me on the long stretches of highway driving I do each year. That is where the heft of the Cherokee is an advantage. But the Rogue and other 'lighter' vehicles win in the MPG department, so it all comes down to the priorities of the individual buyer.
 
#65 ·
In response to Pete's posts:

Thanks for the layout of information.

Perhaps it's subjective on my part, but at least in the higher trims, the Cherokee's quality feels very much on par with my wife's Acura and the BMW x3 I used to have. I've not had any time with the Sport addition models so I simply cannot say anything about it. And I'm sure the Cherokee has a quieter driving experience than the BMW x3 I once had. But I think it's a fair comparison. The driving dynamics are different than these two mentioned, but that's to be expected given the different concentration of performance. But overall, I think the Cherokee is sandwiched between a broad range of competitors even within the compact sized SUV/CUV market. It's a niche of it's own, very Jeep like.
 
#67 ·
Well I owned both the E83 and the F25, and mostly agree with you. The Cherokee interior quality beats the E83, which is not really that hard :). I am not so sure about the F25, but it is certainly getting close, and of course a fully loaded Cherokee is 2/3 of the F25 cost. I wasn't expecting the Cherokee to drive like the X3 (and it doesn't) but it certainly rides well and is quiet on the road. And of course, the ability to go offroad is a unique "Jeep thing" :grin:.
 
#68 ·
How about "Rugged Style"? :wink: I read this the other day (from The Detroit Free Press) and meant to post it:

“The line separating luxury and mainstream is becoming extremely blurry” when it comes to interior looks, feel and features..."

2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited ($37,525) — “Two words come to mind: rugged style,....The Cherokee scored points for advanced connectivity, comfortable and attractive two-tone leather seats and details like a double line of stitching across the top of the dash and a beefy shifter."


http://www.freep.com/article/20140525/COL14/305250055/mark-phelan-ward-s-auto
 
#74 ·
Does the Evoque come with a low-range in the 9 speed? I know it didnt have 4lo when it first came out, but if its using the same transmission, they could have added it.
 
#77 ·
What's a 'low range' ?
 
#78 ·
A drive mode that provides maximum gear reduction to the wheels and multiplies engine power. Low-range is for slow-speed operation. Found in Jeep Active Drive II system, among others.
 
#81 ·
Correct on the Evoque - no low range but they have added 9speed in the 2014 model and re-engineered drive train (Active Driveline) which allows rear diff lock via clutches on the rear axle, this gives a big boost for off-road from the 2012 model.


Although you get more cab width in the Evoque, rear leg room and trunk space is less.


Interior is VERY nice and drive is very smooth.


If you want to go rock crawling with your Wrangler buddies then the Cherokee (even with the 2014 Cherokee haters) it's a better option. If you want occasional off-roading (still perfectly capable but....) and you want a quality finished interior for daily commutes, etc then it has to be the Evoque.


Funnily enough both vehicles have attracted similar bad press and feelings from the purists but yet they both continue to sell well and have loyal followers.


Personally, if I hadn't been upside down on my last vehicle finance I would have gone with the Evoque, but I am British :)
 
#84 ·
Last December we were looking for a good off-road capable suv to replace our '08 Mitsu V-6 Outlander, and decided to check out the new Cherokee. We had looked at a new Outlander but did not like the changes that has been made for 2014, and we also considered a Subaru Forester, but were not keen on either a lower power 2.5 litre four, or a turbo 2 litre. So off to the Jeep dealer for a look and a test drive in a V-6 North. That really sold us on the car, but we wanted a Trailhawk for its better off-road prowess. There was also the fact that a North, equipped with all the things that the TH offered, would have cost almost as much by the time we spent $1000 or more on good off-road tires. The order was placed on 31 Jan 14 and we finally received our beautiful cherry red TH in late May. I have never been happier with a new car than I have with this Jeep and she has vindicated out choice for over 7,500 miles now.
:grin:
 
#85 · (Edited)
I just saw this off road vid with the Evoque. It is funny that they need to add tires and skid plates and it still does so poorly. I bet the Cherokee would kick *ss on this course and crush the Evoque.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANLmatCFYMA

I think the Cherokee beats the evoke on every front, but then again I am biased :)
 
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