Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Ramblejam
Originally Posted By: Miller88
As someone who owns the below Cherokee, the new 'Cherokee' is an outright disgrace.
I for one embrace the archaic, lovable simplicity of the XJ. Saying it's a disgrace though is misguided fanatacism, at best.
Check out the stats for your Cherokee (with the 4.0L I-6):
In quite literally every single category (as well, the objective handling measurements missing in this comparison), the new Cherokee is superior.
.
You know what surprises me about that table, having not looked at anything like that in 15 years or so? How soundly the XJ HAMMERED most everything else on that list except the Esca/bute! People today whine about the 4.0 XJ being "underpowered" and "having a tractor engine." But God's honest truth: when Chrysler stripped the Renix fuel management off and created the 4.0 "HO", the automotive press let out a collective gasp at how fast the thing was, especially in the lightweight XJ. And it wasn't exactly pokey in '84 with Renix injection, either. There was even a police version in the early 90s.
And don't dismiss the on-road handling of the XJ out-of-hand, either. People forget that solid axles generally turn in excellent skidpad numbers on smooth pavement, and need less stabilizer bar to minimize weight transfer than independent suspension often does. No camber change with body roll, after all. Their downfall is how badly they degrade when one wheel bounces over a rough spot and reduces traction on the other wheel. In most driving, the XJ Cherokee actually handles pretty well, even though the ride is rough and the steering center feel is sloppy. There's a reason they didn't have the high rollover rates that some other "more modern" SUVs of their era had.
Time passes, things change, and tech evolves. Independent suspension still isn't where solid axles are for offroading, but it may get there. Some people still love manually engaging/disengaging part-time 4x4 transfer cases (me included!) just like some people enjoy shifting fully manual transmissions (not just closet automatics with dry clutches and paddle shifters). But OBJECTIVELY, fully automatic 4x4 systems like the new Cherokee has are closing the gap and may even be better for the once-a-year offroader and snow driving, just like automatics are better for most drivers nowdays. That's even more true for the Grand Cherokee with its longitudinal engine and rear-bias driveline- that's a problem vehicles like the new Cherokee, sideways-engine Explorer, RAV-4, CRV, etc. will never get away from. But most buyers can live with it.
I spent a lot of years thinking "every Jeep offered should follow the Wrangler drivetrain template." But I'm gradually seeing that they need to be more diverse to compete... as long as they still DO offer a Wrangler with a two-stick drivetrain option for the purists.
There's a PDF floating around of state of MI or MN testing the 4.0HO cherokee against a number of police cars. It didn't do so well in interior space and fuel consumption, but track times were actually pretty good.
I call it a tractor engine, for good reasons. Simple , flat torque curve, powerful and reliable.
The only time I have ever experienced any sort of "woah" when driving a solid axle vehicle was when the tires were inflated to 80PSI on a wrangler (load range D truck tires ...). Other than that I have never experienced any of the hopping causing loss of traction.
I have had mine completely sideways on dry pavement at 55. It didn't go over. That was back when it was stock. Now, it would tip over pretty quickly, I'm certain.
Calling the 2014 "Cherokee" a Cherokee is kind of like if they had brought back the Challenger as the Caliber. A good vehicle, but not quite the same.
ZF makes good transmissions, I agree.
