Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

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

According to figures released this morning, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Jeep Wrangler both outsold the Ford Explorer in June. The Explorer, which has been the top-selling non-compact SUV, came in with 15,588 June deliveries compared to 16,626 for the Grand Cherokee and 16,165 for the Wrangler. Ford's official figures split out the Explorer-based Police Interceptor Utility, which is marketed and sold as a different vehicle. However, even adding the PI Utility's 1,009 sales still leaves the Explorer behind the Grand Cherokee. For 2012, Ford sold 164,207 Explorers, while Jeep sold 154,734 Grand Cherokees, a fairly close run. The 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, in production now, dramatically boosted the desirability of the V6 models by adding an efficient eight-speed automatic to aid acceleration, responsiveness, and fuel economy; that transmission is also standard on V8 and diesel models.

View the original, full post
 

·
Mopar-nac The Moderator
Joined
·
26,427 Posts
Fantastic
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
This is really nice to see! Keep it up Chrysler!

I did a little comparing of the 2014 Explorer with the 2014 Grand Cherokee......much closer than I thought:

2014 Ford Explorer: (6-Speed) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee: (8-Speed)

2.0L 237HP FWD and 20 city 28 Highway 3.0L 240HP FWD and --- city 30 Highway

3.5L 290HP AWD and 17 city 23 Highway 3.6L 290HP 4x4 and 17 city 24 Highway

I understand the Ford 2.0 and Chrysler's diesel 3.0 are completely different animals, but I am referring to HP and fuel economy options. I wonder which SUV can tow better.... :1st:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,747 Posts
Chrysler1998 said:
This is really nice to see! Keep it up Chrysler!

I did a little comparing of the 2014 Explorer with the 2014 Grand Cherokee......much closer than I thought:

2014 Ford Explorer: (6-Speed) 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee: (8-Speed)

2.0L 237HP FWD and 20 city 28 Highway 3.0L 240HP FWD and --- city 30 Highway

3.5L 290HP AWD and 17 city 23 Highway 3.6L 290HP 4x4 and 17 city 24 Highway

I understand the Ford 2.0 and Chrysler's diesel 3.0 are completely different animals, but I am referring to HP and fuel economy options. I wonder which SUV can tow better.... :1st:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEAq6OQULP8
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,027 Posts
Great news. Put that in your pipe Ford. To compare an Explorer to a Grand Cherokee is silly to say the least. JGC would walk all over the hood of an Explorer.
 

·
Plymouth Makes It
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
My experience in Explorer impressed me, The fact that Jeep outsells it is even more impressive. It seems like the consumer in this area is more well informed than I thought.
Chrysler1998 said:
That's great! I've always loved this commercial. (What did happen to Michael C. Hall's voice?)

It brings up a good point though, you'd think the Durango would be a closer competitor to the Explorer.....apparently not!
Talk to people who switched brands to buy a Daimler era Durango, all the for sale signs on brand new Durangos sent out a message that apparently is rough to overcome. Biggest I heard was fuel economy and I guess the interiors did not help,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
jerseyjoe said:
My experience in Explorer impressed me, The fact that Jeep outsells it is even more impressive. It seems like the consumer in this area is more well informed than I thought.


Talk to people who switched brands to buy a Daimler era Durango, all the for sale signs on brand new Durangos sent out a message that apparently is rough to overcome. Biggest I heard was fuel economy and I guess the interiors did not help,
I have started seeing alot more durangos driving around here (San Diego, CA) in the last 6-9 months than the previous years since the current 11+ Durango came out. It seems like its finally selling better than when it first came out(Im just going off how many I have ssen on the roads, I dont know the actual sales data---please correct me if someone else knows the sales numbers). Is it because they are actually selling well or are they just being heavily discounted? WIth the new refresh and the 8 speed coming soon, do you guys think there is a chance the Durango can regain a good reputation and wash away the stigma associated with the last generation(daimler)? And if so, do you guys think the "durango" name wil be able to build up its brand cache enough to live beyond this upcoming refresh, or has its demise already been written in stone with the upcoming wagoneer, no matter how well (or poorly) it sells? Plus there is the whole "trucks are under the RAM badge and SUV's are under the Jeep badge" theory I have read about. Is there any chance at all Dodge could keep the Durango, or will this new brand direction(focus) have no exceptions?
 

·
THE MAD DUCK
Joined
·
2,379 Posts
How Cooooooooooolll !

TMD :yahoo:
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
Label and market Durango as a crossover - presto! No more conflict.
Which, ironically, is exactly what it is.
It would become, overnight, the most capable and versatile, CUV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
901 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Which, ironically, is exactly what it is.
It would become, overnight, the most capable and versatile, CUV.
Except, is it? The Durango was not derived or built on a car architecture, the common distinction between CUV and SUV. As I know you are aware, the Durango was derived from the Grand Cherokee architecture which was again is not derived from or built on a car based architecture. They were purpose designed. If it is the the use of unibody construction that defines a CUV, then were the XJ and ZJ also CUV's? The Grand Cherokee and its Durango "twin" may not be as "capable" by your definition as previous generations, but I suggest they are still SUV's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
dmcdonald said:
Except, is it? The Durango was not derived or built on a car architecture, the common distinction between CUV and SUV. As I know you are aware, the Durango was derived from the Grand Cherokee architecture which was again is not derived from or built on a car based architecture. They were purpose designed. If it is the the use of unibody construction that defines a CUV, then were the XJ and ZJ also CUV's? The Grand Cherokee and its Durango "twin" may not be as "capable" by your definition as previous generations, but I suggest they are still SUV's.
To me, CUV is a term the marketing people came up with to try and keep poor SUV's from being compared to SUV's. The Explorer to me is more of CUV than an SUV. Ever since it parted ways with the Ranger, it's become more of a 4x4 station wagon good for driving on roads with 3-4 inches of snow and that's about it. I see the explorer almost like a Subaru whatever but with Ford tech.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
dmcdonald said:
Except, is it? The Durango was not derived or built on a car architecture, the common distinction between CUV and SUV. As I know you are aware, the Durango was derived from the Grand Cherokee architecture which was again is not derived from or built on a car based architecture. They were purpose designed. If it is the the use of unibody construction that defines a CUV, then were the XJ and ZJ also CUV's? The Grand Cherokee and its Durango "twin" may not be as "capable" by your definition as previous generations, but I suggest they are still SUV's.
Yes, it is.
Actually you are forgetting one small detail.
The SUV Durango was BOF with a solid axle in the rear, it went away and came back as a CUV, UNIT-BODY, with independent suspension, so yes, it is now a CUV.
AS for the Grand Cherokee, it was once a Jeep, built upon solid axles, it is now a car, built on independent suspension.
gezco said:
To me, CUV is a term the marketing people came up with to try and keep poor SUV's from being compared to SUV's. The Explorer to me is more of CUV than an SUV. Ever since it parted ways with the Ranger, it's become more of a 4x4 station wagon good for driving on roads with 3-4 inches of snow and that's about it. I see the explorer almost like a Subaru whatever but with Ford tech.
Actually not completely a marketing term. It was originally used to denote when a BOF SUV, solid axle vehicle, morphed into a unit-body, independent suspension vehicle.
Granted there are a lot of CUV's that are in that class without ever having truck roots, however that does not include the Grand and the Durango which were both once more truck like and now are clearly cars.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Actually not completely a marketing term. It was originally used to denote when a BOF SUV, solid axle vehicle, morphed into a unit-body, independent suspension vehicle.
Or it may not have even been a BOF SUV at all at any point it it's life. A crossover may have been designed from day one to be just that...a unit-body, independent suspension vehicle larger than a traditional sedan or hatchback with some form of available AWD.

Many of us used to call them "station wagons." :lol:
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
Stratuscaster said:
Or it may not have even been a BOF SUV at all at any point it it's life. A crossover may have been designed from day one to be just that...a unit-body, independent suspension
Yes, also quoting the next sentence would have gotten you there...;)

"Granted there are a lot of CUV's that are in that class without ever having truck roots, "
 

·
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!
Joined
·
8,808 Posts
And the real HMMWV has four-wheel independent suspension...
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top