Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited 4x4 Long-Term Road Test - Wrap-Up

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,112
edited August 2015 in Jeep
image2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited 4x4 Long-Term Road Test - Wrap-Up

Edmunds' Long-Term Test of the 2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited 4x4 is complete after one year and more than 20,000 miles.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • s197gts197gt Posts: 486
    edited August 2015
    the only reason you buy this particular vehicle is because you want a compact suv with a v6 and the CRV/RAV4 don't come with one. if the RAV4 still offered one most people would choose that one. otherwise it's uglier (to most people's eyes), has less space, worse resale, and worse reliability.

    but honestly if someone said i bought it cause i had to have a v6 i'd say, "fair enough".
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    Uglier than what? The RAV4, have you looked carefully at the current RAV4? I was a big fan of the 2nd and 3rd gen RAV4's, but this latest one is (IMO) hideous and I wouldn't buy one even if it still came with a V6. Initially I wasn't impressed with the Cherokee's looks. But I have seen many in person and I have come to really like it.

    The CR-V is not bad looking, but it is rather plain. If I were going to buy a 4cyl CUV it would almost certainly be the CX-5, with the Escape 1.6EB a close 2nd.
  • skisurf1skisurf1 Posts: 13
    I bought a Honda CRV over the Cherokee because of resale value. As you grow older and having a vehicle destroyed in an accident your learn resale value is a big deal. I owned a 4 runner which was hit by a bad driver and totaled. The resale value after 4 years was simply amazing to me. The truth is I don't 4 wheel and the CRV is the best vehicle I have ever owned. It just works great without the flair. Don't get me wrong I would have loved to own a Cherokee for the occasional off roading fun but you pay for the dream. As you grow older you learn to be responsible in your decision making.
  • pete_bpete_b Posts: 2
    I agree with the Edmunds editors. I have had a Cherokee Limited V6, with all the bells and whistles, for over a year, and have nothing but praise for its performance over that time.
  • sviseksvisek Media, PAPosts: 34
    edited August 2015
    We bought our loaded silver w/ brown & blue leather Cherokee Limited in February and so far have been very happy with it. The adaptive cruise and self-parking feature are outstanding. I would like to see the metal at the character line down the side of the car be thicker to resist door dings as we've collected a couple already from careless parking lot terrorists. Also, I tend to shift into neutral for long downhill stretches for efficiency and so the cruise control doesn't slow me down, and when shifting back into drive sometimes there is a nerve-wracking 2-3 second delay(seems longer) when applying throttle does nothing, even if you stomp on it. Not sure if that is a mechanical or electronic glitch; perhaps meant to reduce stress on the trans until it is ready. I would recommend to Jeep to make the locking rear diff optional on the other trim levels. I would have paid to get the Active Drive II and then again for the locker if it had been offered, but saw no reason to pay the extra money for ADII otherwise.

    Thank you to Edmunds for reviewing the Cherokee long-term equipped as most drivers would and not the excellent but niche Trailhawk. By the way, your wrap-up says "The Limited is the second highest trim, topped only by the off-road-focused Trailhawk." Not true. Comparing apples to apples, the 4x4 Limited is priced higher than the 4x4 Trailhawk, so the Limited 4x4 is the top of the range.

    I will note that various of your posters seemed fixated on trying to nit-pick, searching for things to gripe about. Seemed like trying to fill space.

    Also, you need to revise how you calculate depreciation. Your wrap-up says "The MSRP on the Cherokee was $35,930. After testing the Jeep for one year and 22,329 miles, the Edmunds TMV® Calculator valued the SUV at $25,857 based on a private-party sale. That equates to a substantial 27 percent depreciation, more than the 18 percent depreciation of our long-term 2012 Honda CR-V or the 15 percent of our long-term 2014 Mazda CX-5." This is very misleading. You should not be using MSRP because that does not accurately reflect what people really pay for vehicles. Better to compare apples to apples and use real world sale prices for both initial purchase and resale to calculate depreciation. Some cars you have to pay close to MSRP but many others, especially domestic cars, you usually pay far less. MSRP also does not take incentives into account. According to Edmunds if two cars both have a MSRP of $40K and a resale of $30K, you say they both depreciated 25%. But if one of those cars typically sells for $40K and the other usually for $37,500, the second one really depreciated 20%, not 25%. Also, a vehicle that sells well below its MSRP will naturally need to have a greater depreciation relative to MSRP because the real-world additional cost to buy that model new the next year vs. a one year old used version would be lower. The used car must be priced enough less than the real price of a new one to incentivize someone to buy the used one. So using MSRP for calculating depreciation is not an honest measure and does not serve your readers. You folks have your TMV numbers for both new and used, so use them both for calculating depreciation. Of course you could also just use the actual price you paid for the car, assuming you bought it.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    svisek said:

    Also, I tend to shift into neutral for long downhill stretches for efficiency .

    It's counterintuitive but you burn more fuel coasting in neutral that you do if you leave the car in gear. Going downhill in gear, the drivetrain keeps the engine running yet the fuel is turned off. In neutral it has to burn gas to keep the engine turning.
  • sviseksvisek Media, PAPosts: 34
    stever said:

    svisek said:

    Also, I tend to shift into neutral for long downhill stretches for efficiency .

    It's counterintuitive but you burn more fuel coasting in neutral that you do if you leave the car in gear. Going downhill in gear, the drivetrain keeps the engine running yet the fuel is turned off. In neutral it has to burn gas to keep the engine turning.
    Wow, a car where the engine will run without fuel! Is it running on happy thoughts? :-)
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    edited August 2015
    Like I said, it's counterintuitive, but "deceleration fuel shut-off" is the norm these days.

    Coasting in Neutral Does Not Save Gas (Popular Mechanics)

    Crazy eh?
  • sviseksvisek Media, PAPosts: 34
    stever said:

    Like I said, it's counterintuitive, but "deceleration fuel shut-off" is the norm these days.

    Coasting in Neutral Does Not Save Gas (Popular Mechanics)

    Crazy eh?

    Thanks for the info. I never would have imagined that.

    Well I can't use the efficiency excuse anymore. Though there is efficiency since in neutral I'm going considerably faster at the bottom of the hill than if I just left it in gear, and especially more than if I was using the cruise control, so I am thus further down the road after the bottom of the hill before I have to get back into the gas. Of course that assumes no one in front of me and that I'm someplace where I can let the speed safely increase as I go downhill.
  • kyfdxkyfdx Posts: 153,614
    svisek said:

    stever said:

    Like I said, it's counterintuitive, but "deceleration fuel shut-off" is the norm these days.

    Coasting in Neutral Does Not Save Gas (Popular Mechanics)

    Crazy eh?

    Thanks for the info. I never would have imagined that.

    Well I can't use the efficiency excuse anymore. Though there is efficiency since in neutral I'm going considerably faster at the bottom of the hill than if I just left it in gear, and especially more than if I was using the cruise control, so I am thus further down the road after the bottom of the hill before I have to get back into the gas. Of course that assumes no one in front of me and that I'm someplace where I can let the speed safely increase as I go downhill.
    It definitely depends on what is at the end of your coasting phase... If by coasting in gear, you have to accelerate to get back up to speed, while coasting in neutral allows you to pickup speed and avoid acceleration at the end, then it may be that coasting in neutral would be more efficient, overall.

    That is why you will see hyper-milers do anything to keep their speed up and avoid accelerating.

    But, as noted... while you are only coasting, staying in gear is more efficient.

    Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!

    Edmunds Moderator

Sign In or Register to comment.