2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Review

[Huie83]

Hey All-

I am out of town on business this week and received a 2014 Grand Cherokee as my rental.

Thought I would Give A quick overview of the vehicle after my week long "test drive"

Likes:

-Fit and finish are top notch,deffinetly better than my 2013 Explorer.
-The navigation and tech are easy to use, stereo is awesome. LED's lite up the interior spaces without being too bright.
-Ride quality is excellent, much quieter and more reformed than my Explorer.
-Overall a very nice vehicle, they have come a long way since the last series!

Dislikes:

-The interior materials are just okay, the leather is a tad "plasticky" and the seats are way too firm for my liking.
-The drivetrain is my biggest and only real complaint. IMO the 3.6 Pentastar in this vehicle just does not work.It needs something with a little more torque. You really have to rev it to get decent power, that gets annoying quick. Also, I Don't know if it was just my rental but the gear changes were pretty rough sometimes, especially coming to a stop shifting down. That said, once you are in the 4-6K RPM range there is plenty of power.

Other than the engine and trans combo it was a very nice vehicle. I'd put it on my list if I were shopping for a small SUV.

 

[KCJeep]

Cool! Not sure what other combos are available but it sounds like an engine upgrade would be money well spent then.

 

[JHZR2]

Thanks. id like a diesel JGC...

 

[Bandito440]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Thanks. id like a diesel JGC...

I would too, in Laredo trim. Not the $45,000 Limited and higher.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: Huie83

-The drivetrain is my biggest and only real complaint. IMO the 3.6 Pentastar in this vehicle just does not work.It needs something with a little more torque. You really have to rev it to get decent power, that gets annoying quick. Also, I Don't know if it was just my rental but the gear changes were pretty rough sometimes, especially coming to a stop shifting down. That said, once you are in the 4-6K RPM range there is plenty of power.

Other than the engine and trans combo it was a very nice vehicle. I'd put it on my list if I were shopping for a small SUV.


My dad has a 2013 Grand Cherokee Trailhawk. He has had it for about 11k miles now and loves it. When test driving, we drove the 3.6 pentastar and he had the same opinion about it. It seems to be a high revving engine. He ended up getting the 5.7L Hemi and it is awesome. Tons of low end torque and smooth power. He frequently tows a trailer, so the Hemi was a better option anyway.

I've driven a 3.7L V6 in the earlier Grands and wasn't impressed by that one either, but then again I'm used to 4.0L I-6 or V8 powered Grands, both of which have more low end torque.

 

[kkreit01]

I agree. The '11-13 Pentastar models are worse yet. The 8 speed, and lower gears in the '14 added almost a second in acceleration tests. It's definitely a high-revving/good highway passing speed set-up. It is quite weak on low-end grunt. It does behave very differently than the 3.5 Duratec in the Fords. I wouldn't call it a "small SUV". It's 2nd row is bigger than most.

 

[Huie83]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I agree. The '11-13 Pentastar models are worse yet. The 8 speed, and lower gears in the '14 added almost a second in acceleration tests. It's definitely a high-revving/good highway passing speed set-up. It is quite weak on low-end grunt. It does behave very differently than the 3.5 Duratec in the Fords. I wouldn't call it a "small SUV". It's 2nd row is bigger than most.


I agree with you it is actually a "midsize" SUV and felt quite a bit bigger on the inside than the previous generation. I owned a 05 with the Hemi for a few years, that was a great engine and I can imagine would do well in this SUV too. If I was shopping for one I would get the 5.7 over the 3.6 any day.

This brings up a good side topic, why are manufacturers going towards these rev happy engines with no torque? I posted a few months back on my experience with a 2013 Impala with Chevy's new 3.6 V6. That vehicle was the same way, had to rev the balls out of it to get any usable power! After a few days I was so sick of driving it. This was in comparison to my 2010 impala with the 3.5 V6. While the 3.5 is about 80 HP short of the new 3.6 V6, the power is WAY more usable.

Thoughts?

 

[supton]

mpg and emissions if I had to guess. With a rev-happy engine you can advertise high peak hp numbers, and perhaps even high tq values; (possibly) game the setup so as to get high EPA estimates too. Also, if the engine is smaller on the inside it should be smaller on the outside, leading to easier packaging. Adding DOHC and balance shafts and who knows what else makes all the stuff outside of the cylinder and crank much larger than it ever was before.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Huie83
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I agree. The '11-13 Pentastar models are worse yet. The 8 speed, and lower gears in the '14 added almost a second in acceleration tests. It's definitely a high-revving/good highway passing speed set-up. It is quite weak on low-end grunt. It does behave very differently than the 3.5 Duratec in the Fords. I wouldn't call it a "small SUV". It's 2nd row is bigger than most.


I agree with you it is actually a "midsize" SUV and felt quite a bit bigger on the inside than the previous generation. I owned a 05 with the Hemi for a few years, that was a great engine and I can imagine would do well in this SUV too. If I was shopping for one I would get the 5.7 over the 3.6 any day.

This brings up a good side topic, why are manufacturers going towards these rev happy engines with no torque? I posted a few months back on my experience with a 2013 Impala with Chevy's new 3.6 V6. That vehicle was the same way, had to rev the balls out of it to get any usable power! After a few days I was so sick of driving it. This was in comparison to my 2010 impala with the 3.5 V6. While the 3.5 is about 80 HP short of the new 3.6 V6, the power is WAY more usable.

Thoughts?


I think some of it, is the there is so much more power once you rev up these new V6's.
I bet that the 3.6 has more torque at any rpm that the 3.5L.
Also the drive to improve mileage has led to very tall final gear ratios, so a downshift or two is needed to make something happen. I think all the new 5spd+ automatics have cruising rpms far below what you would see with your 4 spd auto, so that makes them feel weaker until you downshift.

 

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: Huie83
Originally Posted By: kkreit01
I agree. The '11-13 Pentastar models are worse yet. The 8 speed, and lower gears in the '14 added almost a second in acceleration tests. It's definitely a high-revving/good highway passing speed set-up. It is quite weak on low-end grunt. It does behave very differently than the 3.5 Duratec in the Fords. I wouldn't call it a "small SUV". It's 2nd row is bigger than most.


I agree with you it is actually a "midsize" SUV and felt quite a bit bigger on the inside than the previous generation. I owned a 05 with the Hemi for a few years, that was a great engine and I can imagine would do well in this SUV too. If I was shopping for one I would get the 5.7 over the 3.6 any day.

This brings up a good side topic, why are manufacturers going towards these rev happy engines with no torque? I posted a few months back on my experience with a 2013 Impala with Chevy's new 3.6 V6. That vehicle was the same way, had to rev the balls out of it to get any usable power! After a few days I was so sick of driving it. This was in comparison to my 2010 impala with the 3.5 V6. While the 3.5 is about 80 HP short of the new 3.6 V6, the power is WAY more usable.

Thoughts?


I think some of it, is the there is so much more power once you rev up these new V6's.
I bet that the 3.6 has more torque at any rpm that the 3.5L.
Also the drive to improve mileage has led to very tall final gear ratios, so a downshift or two is needed to make something happen. I think all the new 5spd+ automatics have cruising rpms far below what you would see with your 4 spd auto, so that makes them feel weaker until you downshift.

Good point about the power of these new V6s. This is honestly the first time I recall anyone lamenting a NA engine that likes to rev when that [normally] entertaining attribute is often being taken away by DI turbo engines. Then again it's only fun if you have a transmission that's properly matched for it.

 

[SteveSRT8]

So many issues for me in this thread.

First, the Pstar is much faster than the V6 it replaces in any vehicle it is used in. Even in the 300C, a heavy sedan. And the unique thing about it is packaging, it is not a gigantic monster like many DOHC VVT motors.

And someone please tell Huie83 that the 3.6 DI V6 is far from new, it's been around for many years now. It is not gutless, it just feels that way. It's so smooth that many people confuse it with slow because it doesn't rattle the interior. My car has been called slow by more than one person expecting a bunch of noise and vibration, it confuses folks sometimes.

Butt dynos are very inaccurate.

 

[Huie83]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So many issues for me in this thread.

First, the Pstar is much faster than the V6 it replaces in any vehicle it is used in. Even in the 300C, a heavy sedan. And the unique thing about it is packaging, it is not a gigantic monster like many DOHC VVT motors.

And someone please tell Huie83 that the 3.6 DI V6 is far from new, it's been around for many years now. It is not gutless, it just feels that way. It's so smooth that many people confuse it with slow because it doesn't rattle the interior. My car has been called slow by more than one person expecting a bunch of noise and vibration, it confuses folks sometimes.

Butt dynos are very inaccurate.


Thanks for the info. I'm not saying that the 3.6 is a bad motor in any way, it was indeed very smooth. I was simply saying that it was not a good match in the Grand Cherokee. I could see how that motor in a sedan could possibly be a good combo.

My review was purely from my point of view. I guess it all depends on how you like to drive on a day-by-day basis. I like a motor that has torque down low in the rev range and really pulls from low RPM, that is more usable to me.

Some may think its fun to have to rev the heck out of a motor to get anywhere because it sounds "cool" etc

IMO the new vvt's get pretty loud and buzzy in their power range (4-6K RPM's) If I have my kids in the car or whatever, it gets old to them and me to have to constantly be jamming on the throttle. The torque of my older 3.5 V6 in the Impala doesn't do that. I can "scoot" away from a light, accelerate on a on ramp, or whatever without having to rev the motor to 5K...

Anyways, that's all i'm implying, it's all a matter of preference I guess. Thanks for all the input guys, fun to discuss these things and see everyone's input! I don't want to disrespect anyone in anyway, everyone has their own opinion.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Huie83
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So many issues for me in this thread.

First, the Pstar is much faster than the V6 it replaces in any vehicle it is used in. Even in the 300C, a heavy sedan. And the unique thing about it is packaging, it is not a gigantic monster like many DOHC VVT motors.

And someone please tell Huie83 that the 3.6 DI V6 is far from new, it's been around for many years now. It is not gutless, it just feels that way. It's so smooth that many people confuse it with slow because it doesn't rattle the interior. My car has been called slow by more than one person expecting a bunch of noise and vibration, it confuses folks sometimes.

Butt dynos are very inaccurate.


Thanks for the info. I'm not saying that the 3.6 is a bad motor in any way, it was indeed very smooth. I was simply saying that it was not a good match in the Grand Cherokee. I could see how that motor in a sedan could possibly be a good combo.

My review was purely from my point of view. I guess it all depends on how you like to drive on a day-by-day basis. I like a motor that has torque down low in the rev range and really pulls from low RPM, that is more usable to me.

Some may think its fun to have to rev the heck out of a motor to get anywhere because it sounds "cool" etc

IMO the new vvt's get pretty loud and buzzy in their power range (4-6K RPM's) If I have my kids in the car or whatever, it gets old to them and me to have to constantly be jamming on the throttle. The torque of my older 3.5 V6 in the Impala doesn't do that. I can "scoot" away from a light, accelerate on a on ramp, or whatever without having to rev the motor to 5K...

Anyways, that's all i'm implying, it's all a matter of preference I guess. Thanks for all the input guys, fun to discuss these things and see everyone's input! I don't want to disrespect anyone in anyway, everyone has their own opinion.

Accepted! Let's all have a beer...

Sure we all love torque. It's how work gets done. But the very thing that many miss with the VVT schemes several mfgr's use these days is that the torque is still there, it's just different.

We rented an ATS with the 3.6 back when no one even knew what they were. Let me tell ya the 3.6 was FUN in that car!

 

[kkreit01]

^ Yeah, I bet. Put that in a 5000lb+ SUV with 3.06 gears, and the fun goes away.

. I like the Pentastar. It is very smooth and quiet compared to the 3.5 Duratec Ford. In the 11-13 Grand Cherokees, it just lacks initial acceleration. At highway passing speeds, it surprises me at times.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
^ Yeah, I bet. Put that in a 5000lb+ SUV with 3.06 gears, and the fun goes away.

. I like the Pentastar. It is very smooth and quiet compared to the 3.5 Duratec Ford. In the 11-13 Grand Cherokees, it just lacks initial acceleration. At highway passing speeds, it surprises me at times.


The cure is theses 8 and 9 speed transmissions that have nearly 5 to 1 ratios for first gear. Then you could have a 2.73 rear axle and you'd still like it. Rear end ratio is not everything these days. But there is a learning curve for programming, that's where there need to be changes.

As an example of the 'slow' acceleration of a Pstar note that a loaded 300C with a 5.7 and a five speed auto is less than one second faster to 60 than a Pstar with the 8 speed. This is why I made fun of the butt dyno. Most people confuse noise and vibration for power.

 

[kkreit01]

^ True. The new 8 spds gained 1 sec on the Grand Cherokees (V6 & Hemi) as well. I have the old 5 spd. That's so 1990s.

 

[Huie83]

Has anyone driven a car with the new 7/8 speed transmissions? I'm curious if it is constantly changing gears or if it up-shifts son and hold higher gears??

I like the 6 speed in my 2013 Explorer, cant imagine 2 more gears!

 

[kkreit01]

^ If you drove a 2014 Grand Cherokee, it had the ZF 8 speed. It gets praises everywhere I've read. Are you sure you had a 2014?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: kkreit01
^ True. The new 8 spds gained 1 sec on the Grand Cherokees (V6 & Hemi) as well. I have the old 5 spd. That's so 1990s.

The 5 speed is the semi-famous mercedes design. It is an extremely sophisticated slushbox, very low first gear, very wide ratio spread, infinitely variable TC lockup, 'dry sump' design, and real bearings where most trans have plain ones.

It is bulletproof up to 500 + rwhp, a really nice OLD gearbox!

 

[kkreit01]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8

The 5 speed is the semi-famous mercedes design. It is an extremely sophisticated slushbox, very low first gear, very wide ratio spread, infinitely variable TC lockup, 'dry sump' design, and real bearings where most trans have plain ones.

It is bulletproof up to 500 + rwhp, a really nice OLD gearbox!


That's good to know. Thanks. My torque converter got replaced under warranty. I didn't really notice any issue -- except for CEL/MIL would come on intermittently.