38mpg combined estimated...

 

Decent

 

Wow, they haven’t announced a Hemi yet.

 

It looks like Jeep removed the FAQ from the Cherokee page.

 

Excellent! Will add asap to 2026 Jeep Cherokee “KM”: Classic name on a big new hybrid

 

Sorry if this was already posted but looks like they're unveiling all the info over it on Thursday.... or just making it more official?

 

Let’s hope for some info on the Trailhawk’s capability.

 

They said a trail rated version is on the way

 

Apparently not available on launch. Maybe it got high-centered on a curb somewhere and that’s why it’ll be late?

 

... or it's a really hard problem and their recent graduates in Mumbai and Brazil and Turin are trying to figure out how to make it work.

Hint: look at how the XJ really worked.

They can't hire Bob Sheaves to fix problems any more, but I bet Ian Sharp, also an AMC clever guy, could do something — but I don't see how they can make it ever match the XJ or KL.

 

... but I don't see how they can make it ever match the XJ or KL.

Wait wut? I understand not matching XJ; different times, different products. But even the much-maligned KL could (supposedly) pass the Rubicon Trail test. After all the blow back that KL got for its offroad chops, Jeep is responding by... Making KM worse offroad? Really?

I'm not a Jeeper and I don't pretend to be one, but.... Wow. Just wow.

 

I could see matching or exceeding KL as a possibility with the right people. The XJ though, I think the best bet there would be Recon, not Cherokee.

 

If they could beat the KL, they could do the Rubicon and it would be a Big Deal™.
The right people, is the issue. As far as I can tell, the right people were hired away.
Maybe not. I can only hope not.

 

2026 Jeep Cherokee “KM”: Classic name on a big new hybrid has comparisons of the offroad angles and ground clearance from XJ to KM. Hint: you won't like KM. Admittedly it's not entirely fair because I'm using KL Trailhawk. I'll fix that now.

The amount of interior space is quite low for the exterior size. They went six inches longer and the legroom is 1.6 inches LESS. Indeed, it has the same legroom as the XJ (well, 0.1 inches less) which was a mere 167.5 inches long versus this 188 inch giant. Not to mention the width - anyone ever tell them Jeeps are supposed to steer between obstacles?

 

What's the cargo space compared to the anteater KL?

 

As far as I can tell, identical. They said 30% bigger but their specs disagree.
Either my KL figures are wrong or their KM figures are wrong.

See the story it's all in the charts. Except I don't have a lot of SJ specs in there.

 

compass has more Cargo Space than KL

KL
25.8 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats, and up to 54.7 cubic feet when the rear seats are folded down.

Compass
The 2023 Jeep Compass has 27.2 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seats and 59.8 cubic feet with the rear seats folded down.

KM
33.6 cubic feet of space behind the second row and 68.3 cubic feet with the second-row seats folded flat.

They also mentioned it has more interior space than KL.

 

I was showing 33 cubic feet. Must be a mistake from when it first came out. I'll fix that.
It might have more width and height inside. Leg room is lower.

 

I was showing 33 cubic feet. Must be a mistake from when it first came out. I'll fix that.
It might have more width and height inside. Leg room is lower.

Based on video I saw legroom is greater.

I don't know how is it calculated but I know what I saw.

Certainly it's roomier for passengers than the new RAV4. Most YouTubers agree on it.

 

Looking now at the 2018 Cherokee spec sheet. 3,655 to 3,953 lb. Three different sets of angles. Here we go...

Legroom: 41.1 + 40.3 = 81.4 inches. That's actually more than I had in my table.
Here we go - your number's right, 24.6 and 54.9 cubic feet. Bizarre. (That 24.6 cubic feet was with the rear seat at design position, it goes up to 29.1 cubic feet with the rear seat full forward.)

 

At least they didn't phone it in a bad as we originally worried about. There were rumors this was going to be just a reskinned Wagoneer S. That cargo dimension would have been tough

2026 Cherokee
Interior cargo volume 33.6 cu ft
Maximum interior cargo volume 68.3 cu ft

Front legroom 41.3
Front headroom 40.3
Front hiproom ?
Front shoulder room 57.7

Rear legroom 38.5
Rear headroom 40.2
Rear hiproom ?
Rear shoulder room 57.6

2025 Wagoneer S
Interior cargo volume 30.6 cu ft
Maximum interior cargo volume 64 cu ft

Front legroom 41.3
Front headroom 38
Front shoulder room 57.4

Rear legroom 38
Rear headroom 37.4
Rear shoulder room 57.6

Yes same size on STLA Large. But hopefully this points to the diversity of what they can do with the platform at that scale. Particularly with vehicles more of a "reskin" vs majorly different cars like Wagoneer S vs Charger for instance.

Gives me hope for a Charger's cousins.

 

... or they moved the rear seat forward to get more cargo room when they did the measurements. That might be the most likely. I think they did that with the KL Cherokee, moved the rear seat forward.

 

I don't know standards... But based on comments and wha I saw on videos it has plenty of knee room for rear seat passengers.

What I don't like is powertrain choice. I'll comment more on it later.

And front overhang. Why? I mean it has enormous amount of space for a tiny engine. A lot of unused space. I'm sure that it could be 4-6 inches shorter.
Styling decision?
Money related? It's harder to achieve same safety rating with shorter snout.
I really don't know.

 

it still has better approach than previous Cherokee.. can’t comment on powertrain since the full line up haven’t been debuted. As of right now? It matches the Rav 4. Base GAS RAV4 has a 2.5L inline 4 203hp and 184 lb.-ft.

Cherokees 1.6 has 177hp and 220lbft.

 

We don't know yet how it acts but on paper it looks awkward. Given that nobody here has driven one, it's hard to say. But yes, sure looks that way.

... and again, this is what happens when you cut all the cheaper cars.

 

As I recall was it even supposed to have a standard ice drive train?

 

This is just hilarious and crazy to me.
There are plenty of poor quality assumptions we can make about the Cherokee, and Stellantis' poor track record on reliability.
But the amount of criticism this KM is getting, is .....wow, shocking and ridiculous.
The drivetrain is dog-poopies? Really?
It's not best in class, but the power and torque seem comparable to the segment.
Is the displacement offensive somehow?
I scoffed at the 2.0L Hurricane in the GC 4xe too, till the second I drove it. Yes, it kinda sounds like a sewing machine, but it's not lacking power!
Regardless, the Cherokee drivetrain is going to have electric assist, which means instant full torque till the engine spools up to its power band.

I think it looks nice. It's a better, boxier style with a couple callbacks to the older versions.
I like the interior, the "on-road" versions I think will compete well with the Honyota offerings.
A Trailhawk IS coming.
Maybe that one will have the 2.0? OR the Pentastar???
Nobody knows yet!

I will freely throw shade at Stellantis, you've seen me.
But to trash this new Cherokee when only a few press people have driven them so far....is just so weird!
Everyone wanted a better Cherokee, and I think they delivered.

If you think they're going to get a 4.0L I6, dream on, it doesn't exist in Stellantis' repertoire.
If you think you're going to get solid axles, dream on, this is not set up to compete with Broncos, but with RAV4s with IFS.
Fuel efficiency has always been a Jeep black spot, and this one is at least decent now.

For me, I'm glad it is what it is, now let's just hope it's a turn of the corner for Stellantis quality improvements.
(though I will not hold my breath for them)

Edit: solid axles vs. IFS.

 

This is just hilarious and crazy to me.
There are plenty of poor quality assumptions we can make about the Cherokee, and Stellantis' poor track record on reliability.
But the amount of criticism this KM is getting, is .....wow, shocking and ridiculous.
The drivetrain is dog-poopies? Really?
It's not best in class, but the power and torque seem comparable to the segment.
Is the displacement offensive somehow?
I scoffed at the 2.0L Hurricane in the GC 4xe too, till the second I drove it. Yes, it kinda sounds like a sewing machine, but it's not lacking power!
Regardless, the Cherokee drivetrain is going to have electric assist, which means instant full torque till the engine spools up to its power band.

I think it looks nice. It's a better, boxier style with a couple callbacks to the older versions.
I like the interior, the "on-road" versions I think will compete well with the Honyota offerings.
A Trailhawk IS coming.
Maybe that one will have the 2.0? OR the Pentastar???
Nobody knows yet!

I will freely throw shade at Stellantis, you've seen me.
But to trash this new Cherokee when only a few press people have driven them so far....is just so weird!
Everyone wanted a better Cherokee, and I think they delivered.

If you think they're going to get a 4.0L I6, dream on, it doesn't exist in Stellantis' repertoire.
If you think you're going to get solid axles, dream on, this is not set up to compete with Broncos, but with RAV4s with IFS.
Fuel efficiency has always been a Jeep black spot, and this one is at least decent now.

For me, I'm glad it is what it is, now let's just hope it's a turn of the corner for Stellantis quality improvements.
(though I will not hold my breath for them)

Edit: solid axles vs. IFS.

I’m criticizing this driveline as somebody who OWNS a 4xe Wrangler. I wanted to see THAT driveline, refined, with a larger battery pack in the Cherokee as a better fit for US driving styles. Plus, it would also benefit economies of scale for STLA.

I have zero issues with the design. No issues with IFS. I know a Trailhawk is coming. My issue is this absurdly poor powertrain choice.

 

I agree that the criticism is a bit out of hand.

I was more critical before I found that my old KL cargo space figure was wrong

0-60 in 8.3 seconds is quite drivable. It's not like going somewhere in my slant six Valiant. It used to be considered more than enough, and frankly we're not driving any faster than back then. It's not like it's too slow to be safe. Most people never accelerate near their cars' max anyway.

The gas mileage is great. The CVT is fine, assuming the motor doesn't also use it. I don't have the hate for CVTs some have. Toyota's managed to use them without anyone complaining. Admittedly in recent years they added a two-speed automatic in front of it. The motors might make up for Small Engine Syndrome.

The price is for a pretty well loaded base model. Each trim is $3,000 more than the one below - I appreciate they've spaced them out reasonably well. Four trims plus Trailhawk makes sense though they probably could have done just three.

There are things I don't like, but this is n't the Worst Car Ever.

 

I just want to interject, since I saw Dave say it, but it's not so much to correct Dave, as it is literally everyone else online.
This uses an "e"CVT with a planetary gearset.
There's no traditional CVT belts or nonsense like that.

 

I just want to interject, since I saw Dave say it, but it's not so much to correct Dave, as it is literally everyone else online.
This uses an "e"CVT with a planetary gearset.
There's no traditional CVT belts or nonsense like that.

Thanks, the press materials just said CVT. I'll fix the story.

 

My CR-V is 0-60 in about 7.7 seconds give or take. It is actually pretty punchy where it matters, 0-40 or so when you need it. Mostly perfect for NJ traffic. Where it falls on its face is the mountains when I want to drive above posted speed limits to keep up with traffic or sometimes even faster (usually the fast traffic I want to keep up with is around 80-85 so I just try to find a few people going that speed and stay back far enough). The 2.0 is really straining on the hills and it sucks fuel. Sure I could slow down but I could also just complain about it on some internet forum and drive the way I want to... the point being that a 1.6 turbo COULD be good, or worse, I'd have to drive it to form an opinion. If it can keep itself from screaming at 85 on the hills, it's a win.
Personally where I want more power in a hybrid drivetrain probably doesn't mesh with where most would. 50-80, if I floor it, I'd like to accelerate faster. I suspect most hybrid buyers don't give half a crap about that because they're happy driving with traffic and hypermiling at 40+ MPG. I have averaged about 30.5 mostly highway MPG in my CR-V in the 12k I've put on it, still almost double what my Durango R/T got.

 

I would've thought that they would've offered the 2.0T as an option. Maybe that's why the Trailhawk is a late entry.

 

Is there any recent info when the GME T4 EVO will arrive anywhere?

 

GME T4 EVO is still having durability issues as of July. As Dave mentions, nowadays automakers optimize these engines to within an inch of their life so I'm not entirely surprised. They'll figure it out.

 

I'd rather they test for an extra year than have another disaster.