New 2014 Jeep Cherokee design - hot or not?

[riviera74]

Yea, Vehicross was pretty advanced car and had more "function" than the Cherokee... It was also more aesthetically pleasing (at least for me) to look at from any angle, especially in-person, regardless of its body color. And it didn't have such ugly "split stacked" headlight design like on this Jeep abomination and this one:

That abomination looked so bad, GM decided to kill that Aztek and build (for a while) the Buick Rendezvous up until about six years ago. Rendezvous: the apology for the Aztek.

[jss21382]

I wonder if the average Grand Cherokee buyer is even male these days. Men who have that kind of money and want a Jeep-type vehicle already own either a modded Wrangler, or an FJ Cruiser.

Grand Cherokee is predominantly male owned. The Commander was female owned, same with the liberty. Now, modded wranglers, I'd say they're a 50/50 split, females that can afford it want a big Jeep. The big split between sexes comes with powertrain choice. Hemi Jeeps are almost entirely male owned, v6 jeeps are owned by females and those that can't afford the hemi. When you get down to the 4 cylinder class, the boxier more Jeep looking Patriot was predominantly female owned, the compass was more male owned.

So, in the end, if it looks like a jeep, females are buying it. It it's newer looking males are buying it. Who knew females would be the ones keeping jeeps looking like jeeps.

[TheEmrys]

Going back to the late 80's/early 90's, we had a saying that I had heard that I find is pretty consistently true: New Jeeps are for families, old Jeeps are for the outdoorsy folk. Shoot, the Wrangler with square headlights were liked by men and women (see: Clueless). However, since the Wrangler's haven't changed much since the CJ's, it was pretty easy to modify.

This new Jeep is just like all four-door Jeep's - its a family car for guys who want to cling to some illusion of machismo that they probably never had, but always aspired to. This vehicle is a great option for skiers, campers, and the urban folk who like to feel "outdoorsy."

The only 4 door Jeep that hasn't been designed for primary duty in a city is still the Wrangler X. Say what you will, its still a pretty dang capable off-roader.

[MadManOriginal]

This new Jeep is just like all four-door Jeep's - its a family car for guys who want to cling to some illusion of machismo that they probably never had, but always aspired to. This vehicle is a great option for skiers, campers, and the urban folk who like to feel "outdoorsy."

You mean like pretty much every SUV ?

[clone]

I like it, suspect it'll look better in person than in picture but so far I'm not willing to say that I love it.

I don't think its comparable to the accompanying photo, a specious comparison and no matter how you look at it I absolutely love it's looks compared to the Juke, the Cube or the Mirano, Nissan's got some real risk takers in it's styling department to be sure, risk at any expense seems to be the motto.

Jeep returning to a more offroad worthy line of vehicles which both Liberty and Compass lacked is certainly interesting, in defense of the liberty I liked the first ones and the diesel but the last design, the boxy one, I hated it, test drove 2 and they just made me want to get a Grand Cherokee.

the last liberty and the compass were remnants of Mercedes Benz abuse, nothing hurt my impression of Mercedes like the mistakes they made at Chrysler, reviving the Cherokee name is likely a decent idea for Chrysler/FIAT to distance themselves from that whole era and bring back an old favorite.

[TheEmrys]

This new Jeep is just like all four-door Jeep's - its a family car for guys who want to cling to some illusion of machismo that they probably never had, but always aspired to. This vehicle is a great option for skiers, campers, and the urban folk who like to feel "outdoorsy."

You mean like pretty much every SUV ?

Well, it is the original SUV.

[Turkina]

With respect to CUVs, I'd like to put in a plug for my Kia Sportage AWD SX. It uses the 2.0T engine also found in the Optima SX and Sonata Turbo, in this implementation putting out 260 hp and 269 ft-lbs of torque. I've found that it has plenty of power. Turbo I4s are the new V6s. In terms of design, it looks similar to the Audi Q5/Q7 because the former Audi design chief (Peter Schreyer ) now works for Kia, but costs (far) less money, gets better fuel economy, doesn't need premium gas, and has a more powerful engine. The Audi has a more refined driving feel, but that's about it. With respect to reliability I figured at least the Kia has a better warranty and would be cheaper to fix if anything went wrong.
They actually issued refunds for advertising higher MPG than EPA tested (I got $150 back...), but my car was rated at 20/26 and I've been getting 28-31 on the highway pretty easily (18-21 in Boston traffic).

[jss21382]

With respect to reliability I figured at least the Kia has a better warranty and would be cheaper to fix if anything went wrong.

Cheaper than an Audi, but more than it's brother on the same platform, the Hyundai Tucson. While Kia is a division of Hyundai, the same exact parts cost a fair bit more when they come in a Kia box, gotta love it, you can chose to pay more up front or more in service!

[clone]

That abomination looked so bad, GM decided to kill that Aztek and build (for a while) the Buick Rendezvous up until about six years ago. Rendezvous: the apology for the Aztek.

it wasn't just the turn signal over headlight that hurt the Aztek's appearance, look at the photo and you'll see it was far more than just the lights.

[Turkina]

Cheaper than an Audi, but more than it's brother on the same platform, the Hyundai Tucson. While Kia is a division of Hyundai, the same exact parts cost a fair bit more when they come in a Kia box, gotta love it, you can chose to pay more up front or more in service!

Yeah, that figures - although the Tucscon wasn't an option since they don't offer it with the 2.0T. Most CUVs have crappy underpowered engines on heavier vehicles so they have worse performance and worse fuel economy than a comparable sedan.

[Captain Ned]

Yeah, that figures - although the Tucscon wasn't an option since they don't offer it with the 2.0T. Most CUVs have crappy underpowered engines on heavier vehicles so they have worse performance and worse fuel economy than a comparable sedan.

About to replace the wife's '07 CR-V with a 2014 Forester. New design, but the non-turbo is the same 2.5L they've always run so I'm comfortable with that. I'd prefer the turbo, but every one I see in inventory has every single option box checked adding about $4K in useless expense. Since it's a new model and they need to flood the lots, methinks a special order (it'd be my 4th Subaru from the same dealer, so I know I can get it done) might take a few months.

[JohnC]

Yeah, that figures - although the Tucscon wasn't an option since they don't offer it with the 2.0T. Most CUVs have crappy underpowered engines on heavier vehicles so they have worse performance and worse fuel economy than a comparable sedan.

About to replace the wife's '07 CR-V with a 2014 Forester. New design, but the non-turbo is the same 2.5L they've always run so I'm comfortable with that. I'd prefer the turbo, but every one I see in inventory has every single option box checked adding about $4K in useless expense. Since it's a new model and they need to flood the lots, methinks a special order (it'd be my 4th Subaru from the same dealer, so I know I can get it done) might take a few months.

I'd rather wait for the "custom order" model with exact features you want to. All of our current family cars have the exact features we want and no useless crap (for example, there are no "running boards" on both our SUVs) that we don't... The longest time we had to wait was a couple of months. Of course, they were not from Subaru, so that's probably why...