that'll help with breakover, which is terrible on WagS, which is why that one should have been a Chrysler. Also, that would distance it more from Cherokee. But they were operating under "Jeep is premium marque" then, which explains loss of Renegade.

 

It was probably planned from the start as a near twin of the Cherokee. If they’d made it a Chrysler, they wouldn’t have been able to share so many components with the Cherokee. Probably their way of reducing development cost for a dedicated EV by sharing many parts with a much higher volume model.

Not saying that’s a good excuse for the Wagoneer S to exist at all though. I’d rather have seen a Recon EV and this Cherokee as a hybrid/PHEV/EV without a Wagoneer S in the lineup.

 

CR-V has a whiny engine. Other four-cylinders are nicer. Try a Mazda, it's amazing how much power they have just off idle. That's not even with the turbo.
The 4.0 was a great engine, but if you look at 0-60 times, ... we have a 4,100? lb 300C. It has a 292 hp V6. 0.07 hp/lb. That's more than the XJ or theoretical 270-hp STLA Large, whose weight you are really, really guessing at, (I would think it would be much lighter), but 0-60 is 6.7 seconds or so. XJ was well over 8 seconds, wasn't it?

The difference is the wide ratio transmissions. A four-speed was good, but an eight-speed is much better. Even a wide-ratio six-speed like the minivans had (2009 and newer, the 2008 gearing was wrong) can make it seem like you've got a totally different power:weight ratio.

Going back - I have a spreadsheet showing 2017 cars Toyota Corolla was 0.054 hp/lb, and did 0-60 in 8.2, believe it or not - 168 hp, 3060 lb. So pounds per horsepower are one part of the equation, all else being equal, but all else is never equal.

(I would have sworn I had a newer spreadsheet of small cars.)

 

How are the Recon and Cherokee supposed to differ? I know they look different, but how do the differ in size, capability, powertrains, etc? Those leaked images from a while ago suggested (but didn't prove) that Recon might not be especially offroad capable. If that's the case, how does it differ from Cherokee?

I don't pretend to be be a Jeeper, but the Cherokee looks pretty good to me in those two released pics. It's an improvement over KL. I liked KL from some angles, but other angles, not so much (mostly the long front overhang and snout).

 

Recon: removable doors, retractable roof, skid plates, tow hooks, off-road-rated tires, and underbody protection.
Cherokee Trailhawk: skid plates, tow hooks, off-road-rated tires, and underbody protection.
Base Cherokee: None of the above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Recon

 

Yes. Size, capability, powertrain. Recon was supposed to be electric only. Kinda sucks that they'll screw it up trying to shove in gasoline engines. Flip-flopping is expensive and brings suboptimal designs. Just keep it was it was, and it would be out by now.

 

They have little choice, given the current hostility towards EVs. Maybe, one day they will have a proper hybrid as well.

 

So, a midsize Cherokee, which is no surprise given the increase in size the Compass is getting. My guess is that the Renegade comes back as a small compact sized vehicle. The real question will be whether that's just a smaller version of everything else or maintains some styling distinction. At this point, who knows.

 

I travel for work and have had a lot of rental cars. Mazda underwhelmed me. I actually thought "For a car that gets such rave reviews I don't see why." I also said at some point "Wasn't this the 'Zoom zoom' brand? Where's the zoom?!?" That was a CX30. My CR-V hybrid (which has the 2.0, not the awful 1.5 turbo) feels punchier off the line, of course both feel gutless to me but I'm spoiled after decades of driving mostly V8s or 3.5/3.6 V6 engines. Out of curiosity I looked it up - the CR-V is 7.9 to 60, and the CX30 is 8.1! And I bet that's because the CX has a turbo so it "Catches up" and eventually passes the longer you push them both.

 

The CX-30 Turbo goes 0-60 in 5.8 seconds. You must have driven a non-turbo.

That’s not a competitor to the CR-V though. A CX-50 or CX-5 is a more direct comparison.

 

Looking at the 3/4 view again, it looks like the 'blade' might be smaller so I shortened the rear bumper a bit but i need to fix the tail light, it's too long.

For Reference:

 

It didn't sell all that well, but it didn't need a local assembly line, either; made along with the European version. The engine would have been a big update. Pricing was ... odd.

 

Most Civics and all Corollas were cramped and slow in comparison to a turbo 4 or V6 Shadow. They did have better gas mileage though.

They were not cramped and slow in comparison with the standard Shadow which was most of them. Can't recall any review putting Shadow above either one. Can't recall complaints of them being cramped, either. Usually you have a bunch of specs. In this case the appropriate spec would be front + rear legroom (given that even then, seats moved).

The base Civic was slow, the midline Civic was a match for the heavy Shadow, the Civic EX was well over the Shadow in acceleration, as I recall from the day.

Consumers Guide on the 1988-89 Civic - this is before the 1990s 1.8s, hp was pretty low (70-105). 1.5 or 1.6 engine. By the time I was looking, they were up to 80/100/125 or so. However, weight was just 2,000 lb (4-door). Consumers Guide reports, “Interiors are roomy...
performance is brisk with manual shift, since the engine revs up nicely, but sluggish with automatic.”

Corolla, 1988-89: 90 or 115 hp. Carburetors!! Ouch. Oops, 100 hp fuel injection for 1989. “If you like high-revving engines, you’ll love Corolla’s, which is also smooth and responsive. The precise 5-speed makes driving even more fun. ... ” No real comments on interior space other than “rear leg room so-so (worse in the coupe).” Weight: 2,406 lb.

Shadow: pretty complimentary compared with Consumer Reports' hit pieces. “Both 2.2-liter engines are noisy, but the turbo delivers 146 horsepower for snappy performance.” “Back seat is tight for grown-ups” - base engine 93-97 hp, 2.5 liter 95-100 hp, then turbo 146 or 150. Weight, 2558 lb for the four-door. So a little more horsepower, (a lot more torque), and a lot more weight.

I don't see the needed interior dimensions here so it's subjective. They were all called subcompacts.

Yes, the turbo four was great. But they designed the engine bay to hold too large an engine, so the Sundance ended up 150-500 lb heavier than its competitors.

 

They were not cramped and slow in comparison with the standard Shadow which was most of them. Can't recall any review putting Shadow above either one. Can't recall complaints of them being cramped, either. Usually you have a bunch of specs. In this case the appropriate spec would be front + rear legroom (given that even then, seats moved).

The base Civic was slow, the midline Civic was a match for the heavy Shadow, the Civic EX was well over the Shadow in acceleration, as I recall from the day.

Consumers Guide on the 1988-89 Civic - this is before the 1990s 1.8s, hp was pretty low (70-105). 1.5 or 1.6 engine. By the time I was looking, they were up to 80/100/125 or so. However, weight was just 2,000 lb (4-door). Consumers Guide reports, “Interiors are roomy...
performance is brisk with manual shift, since the engine revs up nicely, but sluggish with automatic.”

Corolla, 1988-89: 90 or 115 hp. Carburetors!! Ouch. Oops, 100 hp fuel injection for 1989. “If you like high-revving engines, you’ll love Corolla’s, which is also smooth and responsive. The precise 5-speed makes driving even more fun. ... ” No real comments on interior space other than “rear leg room so-so (worse in the coupe).” Weight: 2,406 lb.

Shadow: pretty complimentary compared with Consumer Reports' hit pieces. “Both 2.2-liter engines are noisy, but the turbo delivers 146 horsepower for snappy performance.” “Back seat is tight for grown-ups” - base engine 93-97 hp, 2.5 liter 95-100 hp, then turbo 146 or 150. Weight, 2558 lb for the four-door. So a little more horsepower, (a lot more torque), and a lot more weight.

I don't see the needed interior dimensions here so it's subjective. They were all called subcompacts.

Yes, the turbo four was great. But they designed the engine bay to hold too large an engine, so the Sundance ended up 150-500 lb heavier than its competitors.

'87 Shadow and Corolla sedan were compacts, Civic and Corolla hatch were subcompacts. Legroom was much worse in all the Japanese cars.

	'87 Shadow	'87 Corolla sedan	'87 Civic sedan	87 Corolla FX	'87 Civic hatch
Front legroom	41.5 in / 1054 mm	40.0	40.3 in / 1024 mm		43.3 in / 1100 mm
Rear legroom	34.2 in / 869 mm	31.0	32.8 in / 833 mm		18.9 in / 480 mm
Total legroom	75.7	71	73.1		62.2
Passenger Volume	89	87	84	86	70
Cargo Volume	13	13	12	14	15

I couldn't find legroom figures on the FX, but they weren't going to be as good as Shadow.

There were way more turbo Shadows and Sundances than Civic Si's and Corolla FX-16s. I had a turbo Shadow ES and Sundance.

Compare Side-by-Side

Compare the MPG of cars and trucks side-by-side. Compare the gas mileage and greenhouse gas emissions of new and used cars and trucks

fueleconomy.gov

Session timeout

1987 Toyota Corolla Specs, Review, Pricing & Photos

1987 Toyota Corolla Review and find specs, pricing, photos, compare trims, and explore local inventory by verified Toyota dealers at carweek.com

www.carweek.com

 

PS> Found a CR. Shadow small for a compact car, undistinguished performer, compromised rear seat comfort. No specs.
Civic: big surprise they loved it. No comments on interior space or power.
No point even looking at Corolla.
Their reviews covered around 1990 to 1997, crossing generations, and were pretty short, so not especially useful unless you were one of those people who simply delegated your decisions to them.

 

Cherokee's not electric (and there's no reason to make it electric) but yes.

 

... which would mean admitting they could make a mistake, which Filosa can do, but not the others.

 

I saw my first Wagoneer S this morning in the parking lot at Walmart. It was smaller than I expected…though some of that has to do with naming it Wagoneer (which are ginormous). Since it’s a twin of the new Cherokee, size-wise I guess is just about right. Still say it’s a stupid name (Wagoneer S, not Cherokee).

I liked the styling in pics, though in person I was rather underwhelmed. Perhaps it was just the dull gray color. My wife thought it was ugly, though she didn’t like it in pics either.

I like the styling of the new Cherokee, much better than KL, though that front end looks about as useful for off-roading as a snow plow. Maybe the Trailhawk version will be more practical….when it arrives in “three years”. lol.

 

You're right they could've just called it the Cherokee with emphasis on the E for electric. Wagoneer didn't need a smaller vehicle, it kind of dilutes its appeal in a way. It really should've been the Hornet for Dodge and not a Jeep at all. The current Hornet should've been a Neon or just something else. Plus, why did they even do the name challenge for the WagS if they weren't going to change it anyway? I bet they had thousands of names submitted. .....Way to listen to the customers Jeep, sigh....

 

View attachment 112518

From this shot in the teaser video, the bumpers are pretty vertical looking on these models. What trim level they are, we won't know until they actually debut.
[/QUOTE]
My guess for Sub models are, Trailhawk (yet to be seen), Backcountry, Limited, Classic or Sport and probably some special editions (California, Texas, and something beach oriented). From the looks of it a Trailhawk edition would probably be 29, 30 or 31" tires and 1 to 1.5" inch lift supplied by Daystar or similar and some rubber flare extenders like the put on the Wranglers to extended the flares about an inch further. It's actual capabilities will likely be suited towards those with other toys it can carry along on its roof rack and camping. Eventually they'll probably offer some larger powertrain that will require a bump in the hood to accommodate and have all sorts of stickers on it and a light up grill.

I bet it would look crazy nice in a baby blue color with gloss white grill and accents, sort of like they did for the Wrangler Chief and add some pinstripes to it as well (...maybe next Easter).

 

Wagoneer S was probably chosen for higher pricing.

 

My guess is they saw Range Rover and the Range Rover Velar.

 

I'm sure somewhere in that bill they want to ban diesel electric locomotives and go back to coal fired steam locomotives too.

 

The writing is, like so much today... insane sounding. I never thought I'd find someone who made Marxists seem sane but here we are.

 

Y'know most of the original Nazi leadership team were either drug addicts or outrageous pervs.

 

Yep. That seems to have a familiar ring to it as well.

 

TIL that in addition to being a paranoid loon and Peewee Herman stand-in, Goebbels had numerous affairs, started out as a devout communist but was “converted” to become a slavish devotee of Hitler, promoted and paid for violence, and ended as murderer of his own children after surrendering to the Soviets. I find it interesting that he went from one cult-like belief system to another completely opposite one, mainly because of his hatred of Jews.

Way off topic, that said. I wonder if they'll make the new Cherokee a 2026, which would make sense, or a 2025, or even a 2024.

 

 

It strikes me as very Discovery Sport. You know, the worst Land Rover?

 

Interesting.
I don't think it looks like anything else on the road from that angle.

 

Maybe they'll drop a Hemi in it.... like this Hemi Renegade.

3.4K views · 820 reactions | IT'S ALIVE !!! This thing fired right up first try, thanks to @flyinryanperformance for the tune! #hemiswap #jeep #renegade #dodge #hemi #flyinryanperformance #797performance #HolleyEFI #auxbeam #texasspeed #1320video | Mike Martin

IT'S ALIVE !!! This thing fired right up first try, thanks to @flyinryanperformance for the tune! #hemiswap #jeep #renegade #dodge #hemi #flyinryanperformance #797performance #HolleyEFI #auxbeam...

www.facebook.com

 

Styling-wise, it's not bad at all at least from the few pics I've seen so far. Capability-wise, well, that remains to be seen. I appreciate the squared/boxy cargo area which was a main complaint I had for KL, the sloped cargo area limited cargo room/utility. I'm interested in seeing specs for this.

 

It has a very short rear overhang, so it may not do any better.

 

View attachment 112649

I still can't decide if I like it or not.

View attachment 112708

It's different, though the layout is definitely similar. I'm not sure I like the seat controls on the passenger side of the screen, unless they're individual controls for each side and we just can't see the other side bc glare. That almost looks like a seatbelt warning off button in the lower control panel tho.

The seat controls are like other Uconnect 5 vehicles is my guess, and the driver capacitive "buttons" are hidden from view because of the angle/glare.

Lower button section looks like the new Charger switch bank too - but maybe different buttons.

I'm personally wondering if KM will have a passenger screen, as there is a capacitive button there on the right side of the screen that might be it?

 

I still can't decide if I like it or not.



The seat controls are like other Uconnect 5 vehicles is my guess, and the driver capacitive "buttons" are hidden from view because of the angle/glare.

Lower button section looks like the new Charger switch bank too - but maybe different buttons.

I'm personally wondering if KM will have a passenger screen, as there is a capacitive button there on the right side of the screen that might be it?

Maybe with something like a Trailhawk Elite package or something?

 

I mean the Grand Cherokee also hasn't proven to be a great new generation. Sales have struggled with this new generation especially concerning given its two variants now, not just one...

I do have higher hopes for the Wagoneer S and Recon in international markets. They do seem well suited to them.

 

Car & Driver has new shots of the Cherokee. Including side profiles.
-- looks to be very Wagoneer but with functional rear space. Otherwise the rear sits a little higher, and without the battery pack it has better cross-over.

and interior..

 

Car & Driver has new shots of the Cherokee. Including side profiles.

View attachment 112851

and interior..
View attachment 112852

Somebody grafted a Jeep nose and wheelwells to a VW.