One Year and 22,000 Miles - 2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

One Year and 22,000 Miles - 2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited Long-Term Road Test

We generally enjoyed our year with the 2014 Jeep Cherokee. It proved itself a capable crossover with decent off-road ability. But its transmission also kind of drove us nuts.

Read the full story here

tommister2

Weren't the XJ Cherokees unibody?

emajor

XJ Cherokee was unibody, even though it drove with all the slop and terror you'd think a short wheelbase body-on-frame rig would have. Great off road vehicle, but with a pathetic backseat and only OK cargo volume. Given that, I think the current Trailhawk Cherokee isn't a bad successor for all but the most intense off-road enthusiasts.

allthingshonda

The XJ Cherokee was unibody but unlike this version of the Jeep it was also tough and almost bulletproof. It was old tech but it had a real 4x4 system with 4WD Low. The old I6 engine was designed in the 60's and the 4.0 Jeep version introduced in the 80's but with just a little maintenance it would run forever. And when it did break you could fix it yourself with just a little backyard mechanic skills. To me a Cherokee is and should always be a basic 4WD SUV workhorse, not a cute ute.

bankerdanny

ATH: the days of mechanically simple cars are simply over. The hoops the automakers must jump through to be able to meet the ever tightening emissions and MPG regs means that cars will get more and more complicated.

quadricycle

bankerdanny said:

ATH: the days of mechanically simple cars are simply over. The hoops the automakers must jump through to be able to meet the ever tightening emissions and MPG regs means that cars will get more and more complicated.

I agree that vehicles will most likely no longer be mechanically simple from here on out. However, if it really were a big deal to an automaker to make things easy to work on by the average owner, it could be done. They just don't really care unless all the dealers start complaining about excessive hours per job and the money they get from it...

opfreak

quadricycle said:

bankerdanny said:

ATH: the days of mechanically simple cars are simply over. The hoops the automakers must jump through to be able to meet the ever tightening emissions and MPG regs means that cars will get more and more complicated.

I agree that vehicles will most likely no longer be mechanically simple from here on out. However, if it really were a big deal to an automaker to make things easy to work on by the average owner, it could be done. They just don't really care unless all the dealers start complaining about excessive hours per job and the money they get from it...

and yet these complicated machines need less and less care every year. automakers care about warranty $$, best way to reduce them is to make a better product. A better product might be more complicated to fix, but it also wont need to be fixed as often.

hacefrio

XJ was unibody, indeed. As an owner who knew this, but didn't consider it while writing, this is an embarrassing gaffe. But as emajor and allthingshonda allude, the dumb beast is so tough that I don't think I've ever believed it was truly a unibody, at least not in the sense that we know them today.

socal_eric

Yes, a slight gaffe, especially if you're going to deride the new Cherokee by talking as an expert throwing out platform names and longing for the good old days. :-)

As to the old Cherokee, they run forever and have great aftermarket potential but were pretty crude. If you're someone in the 1% of buyers wanting something they can throw a lift kit on and giant off-road mudding tires, the new Cherokee isn't for you. But for the other 99% it has a suspension and AWD system better than most other CUV/SUVs on the market and offers the ability to tackle most real-world conditions and even reasonable off-road conditions.

That's the same thing the old Cherokee was intended for, but while it did the off-road part well (and why it still has appeal), it wasn't that great of a vehicle taken outside that small niche. Cheap and crude doesn't cut it anymore when you're not alone in your market segment.

allthingshonda

I don't know why people are associating a simple tough vehicle with cheap and crude. Jeep could have easily made a modern version of the old XJ if they wanted to. But they are really going after market share by making a vehicle they feel will compete with the Honda CR-V and Nissan Rogue. Other than the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee there are no vehicles in their line up that would appeal to a loyal Jeep buyer.

socal_eric

To phrase it differently, if you want "simple" and "basic" in a truck-like platform for not a lot of money you can buy an Xterra. Look at the sales figures though and you can see not many consumers want that type of product anymore which is why it isn't long for this world and hasn't been selling very well.

For another perspective on Jeep, when you say no other models besides the Wrangler and Grand Cherokee would appeal to a Jeep buyer consider how many other models besides those they've offered in the last decade. The Commander was truck-like but didn't sell very well. Some think the Grand Cherokee has gotten too soft.

The Liberty? How about the Patriot/Compass twins? While an off-roading Jeep aficionado might say the same comments about those as they would the new Cherokee and Renegade, a true Jeep fan would be happy to see those models. Jeep put in the effort to provide better off-road abilities than the competition and the sales drive profit which drive development dollars for the "real" off-road vehicles.

That doesn't mean everyone has to like a car-based, light off-road utility vehicle but many others do like them and it meets their needs. It also allows Chrysler and Jeep to keep making lower volume specialty models more in line with the perceived heritage.

allthingshonda

I would buy a Subaru before I would a Patriot, Compass or Renegade. Maybe even a Cherokee.