Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Automated System
Joined
·
2,769 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

Jeep representatives have clarified specifications for the 2014 Jeep Cherokee, and we have added a new one: water fording of up to 20 inches at 5 mph. The previously stated 8.7 inches of minimum running ground clearance applies to both Trailhawk and any 2014 Jeep Cherokee with Active Drive II (which includes a low-speed power transfer unit). Cherokees with front wheel drive or Active Drive I, which is ideally suited for slippery or dirt roads or relatively easy paths, have 7.7 inches of ground clearance — even then, over an inch more than Toyota RAV4. 1997 2014 Cherokee 2011 2012 2013 2013 Cherokee Trailhawk 4x4 I 4x4 II Liberty Patriot RAV4 4Runner Approach angle 38° 29.9° 18.9° 21° 39.1° * 29.0° 29° 33° Breakover angle 24 ° 22.9° 19.5° 21.7° 20.4° 23.7°  ? ? Departure angle 32° 32.2° 25.0° 27.3° 32.1° 33.9° 22° 26° Running clearance 10.2” 8.7” 7.7”..

View the original, full post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
I found this on jeep.com for the 3.2 Pentastar:

"Based on manufacturer's estimates 22 city / 29 hwy mpg with 3.2L Pentastar V6 engine and nine-speed automatic transmission, FWD. Actual mileage may vary."
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Good, that clarifies that and confirms my 7.7" "oversight" by marketing...
At 29 mpg it makes little sense to go for 100 HP less for the 4 cly. 31 mpg.
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Good, that clarifies that and confirms my 7.7" "oversight" by marketing...
At 29 mpg it makes little sense to go for 100 HP less for the 4 cly. 31 mpg.
But cheaper..
Interestingly enough, that's the same deal as the 200 / Avenger. The V6 gets only 2 less highway than the best 4 cylinder. So why even bother?? $$$. They sell plenty of 4 cylinders simply because they are cheaper.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,758 Posts
bumonbox said:
But cheaper..
Interestingly enough, that's the same deal as the 200 / Avenger. The V6 gets only 2 less highway than the best 4 cylinder. So why even bother?? $$$. They sell plenty of 4 cylinders simply because they are cheaper.
Except in my experience the v6 only gets about 26-27 mpg real world on the highway. You can get pretty close to 29 on the evic but manual calculations are always about 2 mpg lower. City is pretty much on target.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Good, that clarifies that and confirms my 7.7" "oversight" by marketing...
At 29 mpg it makes little sense to go for 100 HP less for the 4 cly. 31 mpg.
Will it be less expensive though? Could be a reason.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
JKU12 said:
Will it be less expensive though? Could be a reason.
If a buyer is willing to give up performance to save $1,500, they are likely better off getting the 2WD version, or looking elsewhere.
The 4 cylinder means a lot of compromises in most cases. Less power, less towing, less ability off road, lower gears, means its working harder on pavement,
Unless one is hypermiling, the 4 is just as apt to mean lower fuel economy, simply because it has to be worked harder.
Many Wrangler owners with Hemi installations report better mileage than when they had the 3.8, simply because they aren't having to work the vehicle as hard, to get the same results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: djsamuel

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
The 4 will serve it's purpose as the entry-level offering, the less expensive offering, the high-MPG offering (for both consumers and for marketing purposes) and to go against all the 4-cylinder Escapes, RAV4s, CR-Vs, and Equinoxes, et al. Something that the KK Liberty could not offer or do.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,427 Posts
The RAV4, Escape, and the CRV do not have V6 offerings anymore. The Escaoe does off Ecoboost four cylinder engines to match the Cherokee's V6

The four cylinder option is important for the Cherokee.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
MoparNorm said:
If a buyer is willing to give up performance to save $1,500, they are likely better off getting the 2WD version, or looking elsewhere.
The 4 cylinder means a lot of compromises in most cases. Less power, less towing, less ability off road, lower gears, means its working harder on pavement,
Unless one is hypermiling, the 4 is just as apt to mean lower fuel economy, simply because it has to be worked harder.
Many Wrangler owners with Hemi installations report better mileage than when they had the 3.8, simply because they aren't having to work the vehicle as hard, to get the same results.
Yes, but when you add up that someone in the market for a 4 cyl is probably not interested in towing, off roading, etc... then they will probably sell those vehicles without a tow package and other options, thus making them with bigger prices difference than just $1500. Doubtful someone would spend money on the tow package and the 4 cyl for example. A couple thousand dollars or more, plus getting over that magical 30+ mpg number could be a significant draw for some people. People DO make buying choices based on $25k vs $27k. Perhaps the CRV, RAV-4 crowd gets attracted to the 4 cyl option, where as other mid-sized buyers opt for the Pentastar.

People are buying hybrids for fuel economy despite the fact that they are paying a premium for those hybrids which negates their fuel cost savings, meaning it takes many years for them to even see those savings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
my wife will be in the market for a vehicle next march. fuel economy is a concern as is technology and gadgets. 1500 spent on a v6 is 1500 less for cool features especially when it'll never be used for towing or off roading. different strokes and all that
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,570 Posts
Wait, is there a 2WD Cherokee or are they all AWD?
 

·
Administrator
1974 Plymouth Valiant - 2013 Dodge Dart - 2013 Chrysler 300C
Joined
·
36,197 Posts
You know, not everyone cares about doing 0-60 in under 7 seconds. The four cylinder will probably be at least $1,000 cheaper than the V6 and perhaps simpler to repair (less stuff under the hood, essentially).

The city mileage gap is likely much larger than the highway mileage gap, and for many people that's more important.

The idea that nobody will go offroad with a four cylinder is inane. Wranglers and XJs were sold with four cylinders for decades. (Indeed, CJ was sold four-cylinder-only for years, as I recall?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
DaveAdmin said:
I can't find the city mileage on jeep.com but 29 mpg is confirmed for V6.
It's still there just kind of hidden...

If you go here:

http://www.jeep.com/en/2014/cherokee/

then scroll down until the navigation tabs appear at the right with the following options

  • Awards

  • Models

  • Interior

  • Exterior

  • Capability

  • Safety & Security
Click Capability

Then under the big green blurb that says 31 HWY MPG, there are engine selections for the 2.4 Tiger Shark and the 3.2 Pentastar V6.

Click the 3.2 Pentastar that is currently greyed out. The number should change to 29 MPG HWY, and if you click the plus sign, you will see the city/highway breakdown.

Hope that helps.
 

·
Say no to kool-aid
Joined
·
3,922 Posts
MoparNorm said:
If a buyer is willing to give up performance to save $1,500, they are likely better off getting the 2WD version, or looking elsewhere.
The 4 cylinder means a lot of compromises in most cases. Less power, less towing, less ability off road, lower gears, means its working harder on pavement,
Unless one is hypermiling, the 4 is just as apt to mean lower fuel economy, simply because it has to be worked harder.
Many Wrangler owners with Hemi installations report better mileage than when they had the 3.8, simply because they aren't having to work the vehicle as hard, to get the same results.
But as we know, Jeep has already decided to play The Game TM
Someone is going to have to teach me how to do the proper trademark "symbol". Henceforth i will identify the choice of turning this Jeep into a Rav 4 / Escape / Blah blah blah competitor - "The Game".

Accordingly, when dissecting the packaging choices of the Cherokee, we must eject traditional logic of what a practical Jeep buyer would want, and instead observe focus on "What helps them compete with a Ford Escape". The trade off for the admission is: All "material" from Mr Manley suggesting this is a real Jeep must be disposed of in a hot furnace for the garbage it is. This in turn allows the most logic to be made of packaging / marketing decisions.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
The Game(TM)
The Game(TM)


You're welcome. ;)

Then there's this regarding "why KL Cherokee is what it is":
Ralph Gilles said:
It’s an incremental product for a great brand that needs it. It’s a very important part of the segment, huge part of the segment, that we don't really play in right now. Jeep is a fantastic crossover capable brand that makes great SUVs so they deserve to play in this segment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
Our Journey was 1500 less than a comparable v-6, but again, no towing or hauling concerns, and rarely ever more than 5 folks and some luggage. Hwy MPG does suffer the faster you go, but the other reason I went four is my wife has a lead foot. :)
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top