.

Jump to content

allpar, the Chrysler - Dodge - Jeep car and truck site


Hello, Allpar Forums member or visitor! If you were an active member (more than two posts) or subscriber, you would not see this ad!

Register for a free account or Sign in (see top right of page for Facebook/Open ID login icons).


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

2014 Cherokee Mileage posted on FuelEconomy.gov


52 replies to this topic

#1 mentalicca

mentalicca
  • Active Member
  • 297 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 08:18 am

FWD 2.4L: 22/25/31

4WD 2.4L: 21/24/28

FWD 3.2L: 19/22/28

4WD 3.2L: 19/22/27

Vehicle I4 Engine FWD AWD
2014 Jeep Cherokee 2.4L I-4, 184 hp, 171 lb-ft 22/31(25) 21/28(24)
2014 Chevrolet Equinox 2.4L I-4, 187 hp, 172 lb-ft 22/32(26) 20/29(23)
2014 Ford Escape 1.6L turbo I-4, 178 hp, 184 lb-ft 23/32(26) 22/30(25)
2014 Ford Escape 2.0L turbo I-4 22/30(25) 21/28(24)
2014 Ford Escape 2.5L I-4 22/31(25) n/a
2014 Honda CR-V 2.4L I-4, 185 hp, 163 lb-ft 23/31(26) 22/30(25)
2013 Hyundai Tucson 2.0L I-4, 165 hp, 146 lb-ft 23/29(25) 21/25(23)
2014 Hyundai Tucson 2.4L I-4 21/28(24) 20/25(22)
2013 Kia Sportage 2.0L turbo I-4 21/28(24) 20/25(22)
2013 Kia Sportage 2.4L I-4, 176 hp, 168 lb-ft 21/30(25) 20/27(23)
2014 Mazda CX-5 2.0L I-4, 155 hp, 150 lb-ft 26/32(29) 25/31(28)
2014 Mazda CX-5 2.5L I-4 25/32(27) 24/30(26)
2013 Nissan Rogue 2.5L I-4, 170 hp, 175 lb-ft 23/28(25) 22/27(24)
2014 Subaru Forester 2.5L H-4, 170 hp, 174 lb-ft n/a 24/32(27)
2014 Subaru Forester 2.0L turbo H-4 N/A 23/28(25)
2013 Toyota RAV4 2.5L I-4, 176 hp, 172 lb-ft 24/31(26) 22/29(25)
2014 Volkswagen Tiguan 2.0L turbo I-4, 200 hp, 207 lb-ft 21/26(23) 20/26(23)
2013 Range Rover Evoque 2.0L turbo I-4 n/a 20/28(23)
2013 Land Rover LR2 2.0L turbo I-4 n/a 17/24(20)
2014 Audi Q5 2.0L turbo I-4 n/a 20/28(23)

And the V6 offerings...

Vehicle V6 Engine FWD AWD
2014 Jeep Cherokee 3.2L V-6, 271 hp, 239 lb-ft 19/28(22) 19/27(22)
2014 Chevrolet Equinox 3.6L V-6, 302 hp, 272 lb-ft 17/24(20) 16/23(19)
2014 Audi Q5 3.0L supercharged V6 n/a 18/26(21)
2012 Jeep Liberty 3.7L V-6 16/22(18) 15/21(17)


#2 valiant67

valiant67

    Rich, Corinthian Leather

  • Supporters III
  • Others:Forum Leader
  • 22,931 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted September 5, 2013 at 08:24 am

While the FWD Cherokee beats it in town by 3 MPG and 2 MPG combined, the highway MPG is the same as the V6 8 speed Charger.

I guess a more relevant fact is the Cherokee beats the FWD 4 banger Escape by 1 MPG in each category.



#3 CJDsalespro

CJDsalespro
  • Active Member
  • 2,157 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:08 am

FWD 2.4L: 22/25/31

 

4WD 2.4L: 21/24/28

 

FWD 3.2L: 19/22/28

 

4WD 3.2L: 19/22/27

Even more telling is the the comparison  against the Jeep Liberty....http://www.fuelecono...=31523&id=34384

 

an increase of 33+% is awesome!!!

 

 

and very competitive against Rav 4 and Escape.....this is a win folks!!!

http://www.fuelecono...=33428&id=34383


Edited by CJDsalespro, September 5, 2013 at 09:15 am.


#4 MoparNorm

MoparNorm

    Active Jeeper

  • Supporters III
  • 26,320 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:25 am

It's marginally better than Compass and Patriot, but not by much.
Hard to compare it to Liberty which doesn't exist and was an old tech V6 with a real Jeep drive train layout with heavy duty components, such as stfaight rear axle, transfer case, transmission and north south engine configuration.
Give Liberty a Pentastar and 8 speed and the difference dissolves.
  • Nimbus9, bikeluver43, guyverfanboy and 1 other like this

#5 Stratuscaster

Stratuscaster

    Vaguely badass...

  • Supermen
  • Others:Supporters
  • 20,266 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:36 am

Give Liberty a Pentastar and 8 speed and the difference dissolves.

Maybe.

#6 JRS200x

JRS200x

    CJDR + FIAT SALES PERSON

  • Supporters (L2)
  • 3,330 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:37 am

It's still better than the Compass/Patriot and is a larger vehicle, and it isn't hard to compare with the Liberty, it is the vehicle this replaces so the comparison is always going to be there.  Furthermore, the Liberty weighed around 4076lbs and the Grand Cherokee around 4500, so figuring a 500lb difference and the fact that the Liberty is not as aerodynamic as the Grand Cherokee would mean most likely similar gas mileage, so 17/24 with the V6 and 4WD.  Which doesn't dissolve the difference.


  • XRT2SRT likes this

#7 bikeluver43

bikeluver43
  • Active Member
  • 115 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:38 am

It's marginally better than Compass and Patriot, but not by much.
Hard to compare it to Liberty which doesn't exist and was an old tech V6 with a real Jeep drive train layout with heavy duty components, such as stfaight rear axle, transfer case, transmission and north south engine configuration.
Give Liberty a Pentastar and 8 speed and the difference dissolves.

 

Agree 100%, not that much of an improvement considering the "downfalls" the Liberty had to work with. I always thought a mildly refreshed exterior, nicer interior, 3.6 w/8 speed would've made the Liberty a much more competative vehicle.


  • unclejjg likes this

#8 unclejjg

unclejjg
  • Active Member
  • 357 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:50 am

It's marginally better than Compass and Patriot, but not by much.
Hard to compare it to Liberty which doesn't exist and was an old tech V6 with a real Jeep drive train layout with heavy duty components, such as stfaight rear axle, transfer case, transmission and north south engine configuration.
Give Liberty a Pentastar and 8 speed and the difference dissolves.

Exactly!  

 

2011 Grand Cherokee 5-speed with Pentastar 3.6 V6 = 16/18/22

2014 Grand Cherokee 8-speed with Pentastar 3.6 V6 = 17/19/24

 

2012 Jeep Liberty 4-speed (note: it is even more antiquated than the 5 speed) with 3.7 V6 = 15/17/21

2014 Jeep Liberty 8-speed with Pentastar 3.6 V6 = ????????????????????

 

If the GC can jump 1 city and 2 highway by going up 3 gears, and keeping the same engine, what would the Liberty have gained by going up 4 gears and getting a new, smaller, more efficient engine?

 

They didn't need to make its successor a car. 


It's still better than the Compass/Patriot and is a larger vehicle, and it isn't hard to compare with the Liberty, it is the vehicle this replaces so the comparison is always going to be there.  Furthermore, the Liberty weighed around 4076lbs and the Grand Cherokee around 4500, so figuring a 500lb difference and the fact that the Liberty is not as aerodynamic as the Grand Cherokee would mean most likely similar gas mileage, so 17/24 with the V6 and 4WD.  Which doesn't dissolve the difference.

What is your point?  The new Cherokee weighs 4106 in Trailhawk form.  The old Liberty in 4WD weighs 4222.  

 

Can anyone speak to the difference in weight between the 3.7 vs the 3.6?  Curious if there is a gain or savings there.


Edited by unclejjg, September 5, 2013 at 10:04 am.


#9 MoparNorm

MoparNorm

    Active Jeeper

  • Supporters III
  • 26,320 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted September 5, 2013 at 09:58 am

Maybe.

It would have been interesting to find out.
Better engine, better transmission, better interior and refresh that snout you like. ;)
It would have been a billion cheaper, without the six month model gap.
Unfortunately it didn't fit M's product plan gamble, but it does make better business sense...for America, not so much for Fiat.

#10 marlon_jbt

marlon_jbt
  • Active Member
  • 1,794 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:01 am

Sigh, a refreshed KK would have been right up my trade-in alley too... :(



#11 unclejjg

unclejjg
  • Active Member
  • 357 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:05 am

It would have been interesting to find out.
Better engine, better transmission, better interior and refresh that snout you like. ;)
It would have been a billion cheaper, without the six month model gap.
Unfortunately it didn't fit M's product plan gamble, but it does make better business sense...for America, not so much for Fiat.

Here is a comparison to support Norm's argument:

 

2010 Charger

3.5L V6 with 4-speed = 17/20/25

 

2012 Charger

3.6 V6 with 8-speed = 19/23/31

 

Note that in the this case, we see a massive gain despite taking on an engine that is LARGER and more efficient!  We are proposing a similar scenario, only the Liberty would be taking on an engine that is SMALLER yet more efficient.



#12 bikeluver43

bikeluver43
  • Active Member
  • 115 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:08 am

You need to also remember, the 3.7 was miserably underpowered and consumed gas like a V8.

 

A better comparison may be a 3.7 Powered 2010 Grand Cherokee to the 2014 3.6 Powered Grand Cherokee?


  • XRT2SRT likes this

#13 JRS200x

JRS200x

    CJDR + FIAT SALES PERSON

  • Supporters (L2)
  • 3,330 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:12 am

You need to also remember, the 3.7 was miserably underpowered and consumed gas like a V8.

 

A better comparison may be a 3.7 Powered 2010 Grand Cherokee to the 2014 3.6 Powered Grand Cherokee?

 

The Grand Cherokee with the 3.7L did 16/21.  Now it does 17/25 with the V6 and 8 speed.  My guess is the Liberty would be identical.



#14 unclejjg

unclejjg
  • Active Member
  • 357 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:12 am

You need to also remember, the 3.7 was miserably underpowered and consumed gas like a V8.

 

A better comparison may be a 3.7 Powered 2010 Grand Cherokee to the 2014 3.6 Powered Grand Cherokee?

 

Except that the two cars were completely different by then.  In the case of the Charger, the car is still the same...I think, but the drive-train and grill changed.  I had thought to do the same, but it doesn't work.

 

You are 100% right about the 3.7 being under-powered in the Liberty.  The lack of strain alone would have made a huge difference.



#15 bikeluver43

bikeluver43
  • Active Member
  • 115 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:15 am

The Grand Cherokee with the 3.7L did 16/21.  Now it does 17/25 with the V6 and 8 speed.  My guess is the Liberty would be identical.

 

I just checked as well, the Liberty actually got 1mpg better on highway for some reason. Also, the grand cherokee used a 5 speed behind the 3.7? Did they continue to use the 45RFE or ?

 

Except that the two cars were completely different by then.  In the case of the Charger, the car is still the same...I think, but the drive-train and grill changed.  I had thought to do the same, but it doesn't work.

 

You are 100% right about the 3.7 being under-powered in the Liberty.  The lack of strain alone would have made a huge difference.

 

They did redesign the charger in 2011 but I doubt much difference would've been made. Your comparison is pretty accurate.



#16 JRS200x

JRS200x

    CJDR + FIAT SALES PERSON

  • Supporters (L2)
  • 3,330 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:17 am

Except that the two cars were completely different by then.  In the case of the Charger, the car is still the same...I think, but the drive-train and grill changed.  I had thought to do the same, but it doesn't work.

 

You are 100% right about the 3.7 being under-powered in the Liberty.  The lack of strain alone would have made a huge difference.

 

A lot more changed on the Charger than that.  It became more aerodynamic (.34cd to .30).  The Grand Cherokee did exactly the same, went from .41 to .37, so actually they would be a perfect comparison.



#17 MoparNorm

MoparNorm

    Active Jeeper

  • Supporters III
  • 26,320 posts
Garage View Garage

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:18 am


A better comparison may be a 3.7 Powered 2010 Grand Cherokee to the 2014 3.6 Powered Grand Cherokee?


Except for the name, as already noted, there is nothing in common between the 2010 GC and the 2014.
Completely different chassis architecture, profile and drag coefficient.

#18 JRS200x

JRS200x

    CJDR + FIAT SALES PERSON

  • Supporters (L2)
  • 3,330 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:19 am

Except for the name, as already noted, there is nothing in common between the 2010 GC and the 2014.
Completely different chassis architecture, profile and drag coefficient.

 

Agreed but it is no worse of a comparison than the Charger is, which was what he was replying to.  The reality is we have no way of knowing what the actual gas mileage would have been (except that it would have been better).


Edited by JRS200x, September 5, 2013 at 10:19 am.


#19 unclejjg

unclejjg
  • Active Member
  • 357 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:24 am

The Grand Cherokee with the 3.7L did 16/21.  Now it does 17/25 with the V6 and 8 speed.  My guess is the Liberty would be identical.

 

The 2010 Grand did 15/17/20 (this based on fueleconomy.gov).  That at 4,261 lbs.

 

The 2014 sits at 4,850 lbs.  Gaining 600 lbs, the New Grand beats the old by 2 city and 5 highway.


A lot more changed on the Charger than that.  It became more aerodynamic (.34cd to .30).  The Grand Cherokee did exactly the same, went from .41 to .37, so actually they would be a perfect comparison.

There is no reason they couldn't have made the Liberty slightly more aerodynamic.


Edited by unclejjg, September 5, 2013 at 10:25 am.


#20 JRS200x

JRS200x

    CJDR + FIAT SALES PERSON

  • Supporters (L2)
  • 3,330 posts

Posted September 5, 2013 at 10:32 am

The 2010 Grand did 15/17/20 (this based on fueleconomy.gov).  That at 4,261 lbs.

 

The 2014 sits at 4,850 lbs.  Gaining 600 lbs, the New Grand beats the old by 2 city and 5 highway.


There is no reason they couldn't have made the Liberty slightly more aerodynamic.

 

In fully done up Overland 4x4 trim it weighs that much, the Laredo does not and tips in at around 4500lbs.  Also, I believe the 15/20 was for 4WD but I was just quoting the RWD model.  If we do 4WD, it only gained 4mpg as it is now 16/24.  Either way, it all means nothing as we are just throwing around numbers with no idea what they would have really been.




.
Allpar

Home · Cars · Engines · Repairs · Tool and Car Reviews · News

Please read the terms of use and privacy policy. We are not affiliated with Chrysler Group, makers of cars, minivans, trucks, and Mopar (TM) parts. We make no guarantees regarding validity or applicability of information, opinions, or advice. Posts may be edited and used in other parts of allpar.com and affiliated car-related sites. We have the right to remove or modify any message, and to ban or suspend any user without notice. Logos and site-specific information copyright © 2001-2014 Allpar LLC; Chrysler PR materials remain property of Chrysler Group.