IL Track Tested: 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 4x4 V6

Is it 280hp or 290hp, you have both listed?

The gearing is awful. 1st goes to 54 mph and 2nd goes to 88.

With an axle around 3.9 this would be wholly competent. With the EPA spec 3.06 it's a straining mess and charging 40k for it is some kind of joke.

Jeep did the same thing with the Hemi gearing, replacing the already tall 3.73 with a 3.47. The passing kickdown 2nd gear now runs to over 100 mph. The V8 has the guts to remain tolerable in spite of that but the V6 sure doesn't.

CAFE does it again.

Jeep has always offer really tall gears as standard. Many automatic Cherokees had 3.08 gears.

The trick is to order the optional 3.55, 3.73 or 4.11 gears (depends on year).

Hopefully you can still do this.

If not then it's offically a crossover.

Wow. I was expecting better numbers for 290hp. Why is the torque so low? My 2003 245hp/283 torque 4Runner V6 can outrun this dog because it has more torque and weighs 700 lbs less. What is one getting for 700 more lbs in the Jeep?

It's a huge upgrade....nice vehicle but it weighs too much. It should lose about 400 lbs.

Why does the hood look so misaligned in that picture? Does it really hang out over the headlights like that or this just more of the same from Chrysler?

Makes me laugh......Now not only unreliable, but a slooooow gas hog. Should have given it a Fiat emblem.

Makes me laugh......Now not only unreliable, but a slooooow gas hog. Should have given it a Fiat emblem.

5000lbs for a mid-sized unibody is a lot of potatoes!
Reminds me of the last VW Tourage, or whatever it's called

8 second 0-60 is par for the course for V6
The V8 won't break 7 seconds
Obviously, they threw a ton (literally) of technology and comfort into it
But a buyer will notice a 9 second SUV as slower than it should be
And that load won't help at the pump either.

I guess no one was there to say "Lay off the butter!"

Looks like if you want decent performance and 4WD
Hemi ONLY!
What a shame
DrFill

ugly, unimpressive, weak, expensive. Come on Chrysler..

At 42,000 who would buy this over say.. for example, the new 4runner?

One more thing

It's seems this V6 is more car engine than SUV/Truck engine
Don't know of many SUVs with more HP than torque
That lack of torque will come up off-road, and when towing
And when moving this load from a dead stop

I'm glad they thought this through
It wouldn't be as big an issue, if this was 4000-4500 lbs
Like most of the competition
DrFill

280 was the original horsepower estimate for the 3.6L version of the Pentastar V6, but Jeep has since revised that figure to 290. We've edited the post accordingly.

Gearing for the 2011 JGC with 5AT is as follows: I = 3.00, II = 1.67, III = 1.00, IV = 0.75, V = 0.67. Final drive with the V6 is 3.06; if you want to go shorter than that, the only option is to pony up for the Hemi V8 (3.47 final drive).

Nine seconds to sixty with 290 HP? Was the engine running on mayonnaise?

Good God, nine seconds to 60. You kidding me? And then 40k? rolling on the floor. 40 freakin K. Right. we see these in the paper advertised for 22-24 in six months after intro. But nine freakin seconds to 60?

Another FAIL for Chrysler. For as long as it took to get this thing out, they could've done a little better with it.
Start digging the hole for Chrysler, and bring over Fiats with a Chrysler badge. It's the only hope left for the name, and they need to get the tax dollars repaid.

hey can I jump on the hate wagon too? what a bunch of parrots

They are obviously not trying to make this a class leading performance SUV as we all learned from this track test. IL needs to review the interior fit and finish and ride quality under normal driving conditions...if it falls far behind in those tests then sayonara Chrysler.

"At 42,000 who would buy this over say.. for example, the new 4runner?"

I would buy this over the 4runner if I actually wanted such a vehicle.

Why is ANYONE shocked? It weighs 5000lbs and this is the loaded AWD model with most of the options. Of course its slow with 260lb-ft of torque. How fast is the 4Runner V6? There is a reason the V8 is available.

It weighs 5K because it is designed to go off road. Engineering a light-duty (and light-weight) "soft-roader" would surely kill this model, not to mention the Jeep brand.

So Jeep, bring on that 8-speed tranny ASAP! 2013 is too late!

BTW, I've driven a new 2011 GC V8 Limited, and was VERY impressed. It's the best on-road Jeep I've ever driven. I didn't get a chance to drive it off road, but I did play around with the off-road setting in the parking lot, including the low range setting.

Does anyone really care about these vehicles anymore? Its just another SUV, send it back to 1995 where it belongs.

Its a JEEP not a race car folks. Not one person who will look at one will ever take it to the track or cruising on Sat nite to race for pinks. 1487 is correct, the tested unit is about as heavy as it gets and it still moves, stops and turns just fine. IL is not exactly the best testing crew for a Jeep...sorry guys. IL tests trucks and wonders why they dont drive like cars. The 4 wheel magazines are the authority on these IMO.

I was expecting better #'s, I told my Sister to get the 2011 GC V6 to replace her '07 V6 Laredo, looks like she needs the V8.

The V6 4Runner Edmunds tested - down 20 horses and with 70 series offroad tires, no less - was about a second faster.

Because it had reasonable gearing.

Stick a 3.06 on there and it'd be only fit for Hertz too.

Erin, that gearing is for the 545RFE transmission which only comes with the V8.

The V6 uses the W5A580 with 3.59, 2.19, 1.41, 1, 0.83 gears.

That is crazy expensive. No thanks.

the new 4Runner is a POS compared to this, engine aside. i would rather have a vehicle that is actually nice to be in and a weaker V6 then one that is a Matchbox car on the inside that is marginally quicker.

@rustyshunt:

The AWD version of the Chevy Traverse weighs over 5,000 lbs as well, although the Traverse is a bigger vehicle all around.

@ dogbolter says:
"Does anyone really care about these vehicles anymore?"

Absolutely! You obviously don't live where this kind of vehicle is appreciated, and is used as intended.

"Erin, that gearing is for the 545RFE transmission which only comes with the V8.

The V6 uses the W5A580 with 3.59, 2.19, 1.41, 1, 0.83 gears."

Nice pull! Again IL cant get what it claims to do better than anybody else. What excuse is there for getting facts and figures wrong on a car they are testing? This is not a art and crafts magazine that tests cars once in a while...it is an automobile publication. I really love this site but cant defend the laziness which the editors write the articles lately. If you dont care about the cars you test enough to get the facts correct then why even test them. The burnout tests get the facts straight.

How could anyone say this Jeep is unreliable already??? Give me a break.

I agree that a high revving engine (gearing?) isn't suitable for a SUV.

rsholland, you seem to know a lot about 4x4 vehicles. here is a question for you: wouldn't playing with the off-road setting (assuming you drove it instead of just playing with that rotary switch) in the parking lot mess up the car? just curious. Well, of course if that parking lot has uneven mini trail, that'd be different. I've been told not to do that on my Explorer. Thanks.

Here's the good news for Chrysler, I think:

A lo of current GC owners will buy this car/truck regardless of what the reviews say. This may buy Chrysler enough time to make the changes that would make it appeal to non-Chrysler buyers.

Chrysler needs to reduce the weight and get the new transmission into production. Eight speeds? No wonder it's taking 'til 2013. That could possibly be a disastrous date. To paraphrase Data: Three years is a long time in the automotive business.

Don't you just hate it when you push the "Post Comment" button just as you notice a typo?

(Obviously, the second line of my comment should be "lot" not "lo")

Before you all decry the price, realize that the testcar was an Overland 4X4 - top of the line stuff. With that in mind, $42k is totally reasonable. Top-level 4Runners, Flexes, Acadias, etc, run more than that!

But 9.0 to 60 is down in the same territory as Civics and Corollas and just not what folks in this price category have come to expect, even for an off-road ready SUV. It's not that it's unacceptable in absolute terms - it's probably manageable day-to-day. I just can't think of an SUV in that class that's slower, especially now that the Toureg & LR4 have gotten their acts together, nevermind those pesky Q5s, GLKs, etc (similarly priced if differently purposed).

@alman08 says:
"rsholland, you seem to know a lot about 4x4 vehicles. here is a question for you: wouldn't playing with the off-road setting (assuming you drove it instead of just playing with that rotary switch) in the parking lot mess up the car? just curious. Well, of course if that parking lot has uneven mini trail, that'd be different. I've been told not to do that on my Explorer. Thanks."

This was a paved dealer lot. To answer your question I'd say "maybe, maybe not"

Many (not all, but many) SUVs, when you put them in low range, the 4WD becomes a part-time 4WD system (even if in high range it's full-time 4WD). That means you shouldn't turn the steering wheel on a hard paved surface, as you'll get a "crow-hopping" effect because the inside front wheel is turning at the same speed as the outside front wheel. It's also known as "binding," and yes, that could damage the unit. Full-time 4WD allows for some slippage so that the front wheels, when turned, operate at different speeds, thus eliminating the crow-hopping effect.

I've driven a new Land Rover LR4 a couple of months back, and the LR4 can be driven on any surface even in low range. I'm not sure about the new Grand Cherokee, however. As such, I just drove the GC in a straight line for a short distance in low range, and therefore didn't risk damaging anything.

@ed124c

2013 MY, so early to mid 2012. Good to see some sensible posts made it in.

aspade:

4runner has a 4L v6 with more torque which explains its superior explanation. There arent many 4L DOHC V6s on the market so that is huge.

A tahoe needs over 8 secs to hit 60 with a 320hp V8 so this acceleration isnt shocking. The last gen Toureg/Q7 weren't much faster than this vehicle.

rsholland:

There is speculation that Chrysler will be using Zf 8 speeds before they are made in the US. I dont know if we have to wait until 2013 to see them.

roar2:

A loaded 4Runner is about $42k and it lacks many of the features on the JGC and has a much worse interior.

I've even noticed that my AWD WRX, on a cold winter morning, will exhibit a little crow-hopping for the first few feet. Once the fluids warm up even a little (which happens quickly), that crow-hopping goes away.

Yes, you're absolutely right. It was late and I looked at the wrong page of the specs and didn't do a reality check before I posted those gear ratios. And yes, that's inexcusable. My apologies.

Gear Ratios w/ V6:
1st: 3.59
2nd: 2.19
3rd: 1.41
4th: 1.00
5th: 0.83
Reverse 3.16
Final Drive Ratio: 3.06:1
Overall Top Gear: 2.54

Bodyblue, so you've never found a mistake in any other automotive publication, magazine or website? That's impressive and I should study up. We do work hard to get the facts straight here, but we're human, so sometimes we fail and, for me, this happens to have been one of those times. I'm sorry that I don't measure up, but I love that you still care enough to comment. :)

I don't think 9.0s 0-60 is unreasonable for the base powertrain. For those linking vehicle cost to 0-60 time, there is some combination of trim level / powertrain option that will yield better performance at a lower price, I'm sure (think Laredo Hemi). This particular evaluation car, though, showcases the best new features of the GC, namely the new V6 and the nice high content Limited interior.

Damn, this site is just like every other internet magazine site - anti-Chrysler. None of your comments are thought out at all. This is a loaded Overland 4x4 weighing 5048lbs with very tall gears and you guys are expecting 0-60 and 1/4 mile times to compete with the 4Runner which weighs 300lbs less, more aggressive gearing etc. - you are all cracked up. Stupid comments on this site. Look at the numbers: 4Runner numbers from Edmunds.com/insideline

The Jeep out breaks the much lighter 4Runner by 15ft from 60-0 (140ft 4Runner - 125 JGC).
The much heavier JGC also handles better than the 4Runner (.67 4Runner - .72 JGC).
Look at Slalom speed, the JGC does that better also (4Runner 57.2 - JGC 59.4
Acceleration goes to the 4Runner clearly (4Runner 16.1 1/4 - 16.6 1/4 JGC).
But, look at trap speeds - 4Runner 86.1 - JGC 85.6 - the Jeep starts to really hustle on the top end given it's gearing etc.

How can you guys seriously sit back and trash such an outstanding vehicle and also claim it is too expensive - the 4Runner V6 4x4 is 40K loaded. Honestly, almost all of you should behave in a more mature manner (just give a FAIR comparison) and stop acting like fanboys. The JGC is an incredible SUV and none of you can bring yourself to admit it, sad.

Overland interior. Even nicer..

One thing I'm not happy about is that the new GC doesn't offer a matching full-size spare tire. A temp tire comes standard (bad!); and with the off-road package, you do get a full-size spare, but it's a different tire size than the other 4 tires on the vehicle. What's up with that???

Good reason to buy a Hemi

People can`t really complaing about prices, cause the 4runner Limited 4X4 costs $42k with nav.
And you can hike the price even more.
And yes, they tested the top of the line Overland here.

I said it before in another blog of the GC SRT-8, that his new gen is a pig, as I said, around 5000lbs. So this acceleration numbers are no surprise to me.

With off-road perfomance tires it performs well in braking, handling and in the skidpad, midpack I believe for the class or even a bit better.

For comparison, the trail grade 4runner IL tested, had poorer perfomance in the slalom, lets say equal in the skidpad and the 4 runner had a very poor 140ft 60-0 braking perfomance.

Even the 1/4 mile of the 4runner was 16.1 secs vrs the Jeep`s 16.6 secs.

Of course they got better handling numbers out of the Jeep, it's on touring tires and the 4Runner Trail was on much knobbier Duelers.

Edmunds also tested a SR5 4Runner with Dunlop all seasons and it gripped and stopped better than this Jeep.

@1487, bodyblue, dobbins2550, I totally agree with you folks. I certainly wouldn't be buying the V6 JGC for its acceleration, especially a top spec Overland. Common sense would tell you the higher the trim level, the heavier this puppy is going to get, and especially since you buy a Jeep expecting some sort of true off-road capability, it'd be the last thing on my mind.

Sounds to me like the new JGC is incredibly competent for a fully capable off-road ready V6-powered SUV. You want an SUV that drives like a sports sedan? Go get one of the several crossover options out there, or shell out for a Range Rover Sport, X5, or Cayenne.

This Jeep is miles ahead in interior quality than anything else Chrysler has on the market, and the styling is a nice evolution of the Jeep theme. This will sell well. And for those asking "Who would buy this over a 4Runner?", I most certainly would if I needed such a vehicle. The 4Runner has what is now the ubiquitous theme across pretty much the entire Toyota range...an interior that is made of plastic, and certainly looks and feels like it's made of plastic. Add to that styling that is patterned after Lego blocks, and I could care less if I get a few tenths extra in acceleration. I'd want an off-roader that is nice to ride in and is at least decent to look at. The Jeep exceeds in those departments considerably.

"Bodyblue, so you've never found a mistake in any other automotive publication, magazine or website? That's impressive and I should study up. We do work hard to get the facts straight here, but we're human, so sometimes we fail and, for me, this happens to have been one of those times. I'm sorry that I don't measure up, but I love that you still care enough to comment. :)

Erin,

That you got defensive and sarcastic show that indeed this must be a problem. I only said something because there has been SO many errors lately. And yes you should study up if you are going to publish something. And of course there are errors on other sites, but just not as many lately. If one is going to be credible then an editor must try to be perfect. There were TWO errors in this article that you had to correct.....that just shows that either you were in a hurry to get it online or that you did not care enough about the car or article to do a complete job. Sorry you are offended because I enjoy your blogs and IL very much.

Erin:

Dont believe BB. MT is famous (infamous) for typos and incorrect specs and they dont even apologize for their mistakes and Autoblog is inaccurate so often that they can't really be considered a credible mainstream source of car information. I will say that IL has gotten better in terms of road test spec accuracy.

I dont care what the 4runner does as long as its that ugly and has an interior that is several grades below the JGC. You don't buy this type of vehicle to drag race and unlike the 4runner the power of a V8 is optional here.

Lets see an Overland Hemi and the upcomong SRT.

I would never consider the V6 unless it was some engineering masterpiece which tuners all over the planet were making outrageous performance parts for.

I think $42-44K is perfectly acceptable given this is the completely loaded 4x4 Overland version - I don't understand why people are complaining about the price when much cheaper versions are clearly available. I am disappointed by the sluggish 9 second 0-60 though for a 290 hp brand-new engine. Other mid-size 6-cylinder SUVs can do a lot better. Certainly the gearing, relative lack of torque and excessive weight are all at play here. Disappointing, but the 8-speed auto should hopefully fix much of this by better keeping the engine up in its powerband.

Granted, my comments apply mainly to the Overland and Limited models. And for the record, I think those models are among the best lux-ute values out there.

That the testcar is the heaviest (and therefore probably the slowest) model in the GC V-6 lineup just is not useful information when lux-ute shoppers find the GC V-6 to be the pokiest offering in its class.

If I remember correctly, the Overland trim used to require the Hemi (or whatever V-8 option was available); pity this strategy wasn't repeated. I think a GC Overland 5.7 (**ahem**, no more Hemi badges) is fully competitive with the GX460, Touareg, LR4, etc.

the engine being brand new has nothing to do with its performance here. You put a NA V6 in a vehicle this heavy and this is what you get. DI would help the torque output somewhat because the Gm 3.6 makes 270 lb-ft in the lambdas and they are slightly faster than this, but not much with AWD.

I'd like to know how this compares to the current model V6. Its probably no slower but much more refined and efficient.

BB:

Why are you attacking Erin when you do nothing but praise IL in other forums and claim they shouldn't be questioned or criticized? You can't have it both ways.

Erin, you should add one of these to your long-term fleet; but please make sure it's a 4x4, and with a 2-speed transfer case. After all, that's what makes a Jeep a Jeep. :)

Yep, is a Jeep. Slow wandering crawler. Want something faster? Get a sport car.

I'm on my 3rd Grand Cherokee over the past 16 years and I wanted a change. I looked at the diesels (X5, Tuoareg, Q7, ML350) and 4Runner. I've come to realise that the 2011 Jeep GC still has the best to offer at the right price and I plan to buy one (Overland with Hemi).
The 4Runner does not even offer memory seats at ANY level so that was dismissed without a test.

We know its a jeep, and its purpose is not speed. But come on these numbers are unimpressive for a brand new V6. You can see that by comparing it to is relative competition.

Couple that with Chrysler's below average build quality and reliability and slap on a 42,000 dollar price tag and you have an unattractive offer.

Especially without its monopoly on the off road area..
http://www.insideline.com/toyota/4runner/2010/2010-toyota-4runner-trail-grade-full-test-and-video.html

Without hating on Chrysler this test is an excellent example of why I've continued to be disappointed in the continued use of a 5 speed tranny. It is simply outdated and needs to be laid to rest and the sooner the better. I hope we don't have to wait until 2013 for the 8 speed . . .

"claim they shouldn't be questioned or criticized? You can't have it both ways. "

Please provide the link where I said IL should never be questioned or criticized. This is your usual straw man crap....grow up you are so infantile. I know you love to talk about things you dont know about but I have criticized EVERY editor that has made mistakes in articles. The difference is that I point out mistakes in FACT, not personal observations (which are objective). IL has no bias that you can prove but cold hard facts are easily checked and errors should be pointed out without the defensiveness that Erin showed when confronted.

wow THIS is the engine Chrysler has been talking up so much? what a joke. Chrysler products have very lackluster engines for the most part compared to the competition. The overrated hemi V8 (one of the very few decent engines they offer) is so thirsty it's not worth getting unless you constantly find yourself towing heavy loads in the mountains. But for the 90% of us that would do just fine with a V6 the Nissan Pathfinder V6 and the Toyota 4Runner V6 are far better performers and probably more fuel efficient. I like the Jeep brand, it's just too bad that they have to be owned by a company that just kinda sucks at making cars.

5 gears are plenty if they're the right ones. Never heard anyone complain about the 5 speed in the 4Runner.

The difference is Toyota picked gears to move the truck and not to keep the lowest possible revs on the EPA test.

@ 1487: Thank you.

"Erin, you should add one of these to your long-term fleet; but please make sure it's a 4x4, and with a 2-speed transfer case. After all, that's what makes a Jeep a Jeep. :)"

+1, this would be a great addition to the fleet. Sucks that it's so slow with the new V6 though - I'd say the V8 is necessary, but probably better to get a LT car with the new engine. Loaded-up Overland like this one, please!

What is it with Chrysler and these transmissions...? It's as laughable as Ford and the 5.4 still powering the F-150 and Chevrolet with the awful interiors... I was looking at the new Ram but upon test driving it, you could tell the engine is limited by the trans under medium acceleration and it seems the JGC is going down the same path. We are trying to replace 2 vehicles as I have a 01 silverado and my wife has an 02 4 runner. I want to do the right thing and support the big 3 but they aren't kicking anything out that I just have to go out and buy tomorrow. The better half fell in love with the pics of the JGC but those numbers look pretty bad on paper and for 40k, i'd like a little get up and go like our old 95 JGC had. I was looking forward to a test drive but now, not so much. With the same trans, the hemi probably won't be that much of an improvement for the price differential. Oh well, looks like 2 more years without a car note until the big 3 get it right. It's a shame b/c I'd love to pump 80-100k into the auto industry...

Normally the top-end, heavy model wouldn't be my choice as a person who actually takes his SUV off road, but according to the Edmunds model review (http://www.edmunds.com/jeep/grandcherokee/2011/review.html) the nice options for offroading are only available in the higher trim levels. In particular, it says the Quadra-Drive II system is available as an option only on the Limited and Overland, and the adjustable air suspension is only on the Overland. I guess I've got to get the leather and everything else if I want the rock-crawling hardware.

^ I couldn't agree more. I too find it very frustrating that Jeep reserves their best off-road equipment for their priciest Grand Cherokees.

"Couple that with Chrysler's below average build quality and reliability and slap on a 42,000 dollar price tag and you have an unattractive offer."

You have first hand knowledge of the new JGC's build quality and reliability? Interesting considering its just hitting dealers and all the reviews have praised the interior quality and fit/finish.

"It's as laughable as Ford and the 5.4 still powering the F-150 and Chevrolet with the awful interiors... "

Which interiors are you talking about? What decade are you talking about?

"Please provide the link where I said IL should never be questioned or criticized. This is your usual straw man crap....grow up you are so infantile."

You've told me numerous times that they are experts and posters like myself have no grounds to question them since they are professionals. You've also said I should not visit the site if I don't agree with what's written. Take your own advice Shadow.

"The difference is that I point out mistakes in FACT, not personal observations (which are objective). "

You mean subjective. And the inconsistencies or errors I point out in reviews are based on facts, not my personal opinion, Get it straight.

3.5 sec to 30, now that's sluggish. Wonder what the 40-60 and 50-70 time look like, as passing performance is very important as well as standing start. As most have commented, the tall gearing and wide ratio gearbox is likely the chief culprit, as it is in most new SUV's, especially domestic ones. I just spent 3 weeks and 4000 miles in a 2010 Suburban 2wd with the standard 3.08 axle. Around the Northeast, the lightly-loaded truck had to downshift sometimes 2 gears to 4th to maintain 70 mph on Interstate upgrades. However, it did average 19 mpg which is pretty strong for a 8 passenger SUV that can tow 8000 lbs. or so. Regardless, I'd give up a bit of mileage for better acceleration and less shifting, whether it be a car, SUV or truck. Sounds like that 8-speed cannot get here soon enough.

3.5 sec to 30, now that's sluggish. Wonder what the 40-60 and 50-70 time look like, as passing performance is very important as well as standing start. As most have commented, the tall gearing and wide ratio gearbox is likely the chief culprit, as it is in most new SUV's, especially domestic ones. I just spent 3 weeks and 4000 miles in a 2010 Suburban 2wd with the standard 3.08 axle. Around the Northeast, the lightly-loaded truck had to downshift sometimes 2 gears to 4th to maintain 70 mph on Interstate upgrades. However, it did average 19 mpg which is pretty strong for a 8 passenger SUV that can tow 8000 lbs. or so. Regardless, I'd give up a bit of mileage for better acceleration and less shifting, whether it be a car, SUV or truck. Sounds like that 8-speed cannot get here soon enough.

With the high-tech powertrains in today's vehicles (and the emphasis on economy thanks to CAFE) a 5 speed auto is only adequete; regardless of the vehicle it's used in. That is why you see more vehicles using 6 speeds as standard and you see more luxury brands moving to 7 and 8 speeds.

Replace the 5 speed ASAP Chrysler and don't get left out of the 7 and 8's GM!!

@half_ton

Just wondering if you actually read the article? 8spd ZF trans is on the way

@lostboyz

If you UNDERSTOOD any of my posts (here or others) you'll understand that I know the 8 speed is on the way but it's not here NOW. Since it's not here now I simply expressed a slight disappointment with that particular aspect of this vehicle. Not the vehicle completely but that one aspect.

Thank you for repating what has already been said.

First off, I also have noticed that this website often is peppered with spec errors. And that is disappointing given its position in the industry.

But I digress.. Jeep in the recent past has only offered the best off roading packages in its top models. The priciest Wrangler is the Rubicon...
To compare the Toyota 4runner to the new Grand Cherokee is laughable. One looks and feels like a $25K truck, the other is the Jeep. Not only does it offer items that the Toyota does not (terrain control etc, panorama sunroof) but the interior is gorgeous while the Toyota is by Fisher Price.
Instead of complaining about the Jeep's price - and what else is in its category given spec/capability/luxury? - you should complain as to how overpriced the Toyota is.

+1 desmo - and oddly the same goes for the GX460, IMO.

kg21 says:

04:30 PM, 07/14/10

wow THIS is the engine Chrysler has been talking up so much? what a joke. Chrysler products have very lackluster engines for the most part compared to the competition. The overrated hemi V8 (one of the very few decent engines they offer) is so thirsty it's not worth getting unless you constantly find yourself towing heavy loads in the mountains. But for the 90% of us that would do just fine with a V6 the Nissan Pathfinder V6 and the Toyota 4Runner V6 are far better performers and probably more fuel efficient. I like the Jeep brand, it's just too bad that they have to be owned by a company that just kinda sucks at making cars.

kg21, I'll disagree with you on this post. The Hemi is far from overated. My 2009 Ram 1500 4x4 can garner 22mpg at 55mph and 19mph at 65mph with 390hp and 400+lbs of torque. It's no slouch. Sure city mpg is 10mph, for me, but it is 3 seconds faster to 60mph than the new V6 will ever be ,and highway mpg is excellent. My best mpg was at 55mph with a bed full of firewood, and the Hemi still got 22.5 mpg. I'll take that anyday.

As for the 4Runner which I was cross-shopping to replace my 2003 model, Toyota has hosed it up bigtime by taking away the AWD and no longer having the optional V8. Once you've had the bigger engine, there is no settling for the smaller engined model. I'll take the Hemi when its available.

The newest Jeep Cherokee is good and it looks nice but it seems it is heavier than pervious one!! I would prefer to take Nissan Xterra which has a better torque and power to weight
than Jeep!! Also, the price is cheaper than that one!!!!! However, if they will put a new tran-
mission of ZF's eight speed replacement for newest Jeep in several years, then it would be better
alot in acceleration improvement, MILEAGES, and lighter newest transmission technology!! It would be breadwinner!!!!!!!

^ The new GC is larger than the outgoing model, which is why it may weigh more. I know the wheelbase is significantly longer than the old one.

The Xterra competes with the less-pricey Jeep Liberty, not the GC.

My God. And this was going to be the new SUV. American brand, American made. Great looking inside and out. The right size for my family of three. Apocalypse-ready offroad capability. A good, competent V6. Right on the money with the competition on price. Better handling and braking than the Japanese brands.

But then it tips the scales at 5000lbs?!

Even if I wait for the 8spd tranny (which would be the only reasonable call to make), what does that do to mpg with all that WEIGHT?

In order to be " apocalypse-ready off-road capability," it needs to be around 5K. Unless, of course, you're willing to pay for loads of carbon fiber, or some other ubër-expensive materials?

rsholland

Nonsense.

My 95 GC is as tough as stock SUV gets right down to it's solid axles and cast iron drivetrain.... and it weighs 3750 lbs. Nothing uber expensive about it.

One of the toughest off roaders I know is the old Samurai and it weighed only about 2000 lbs.

You need good design to be tough, not heavy weight. Heavy weight actually works againest you.

It's the luxo crap that makes it heavy, not the off road ability. Look at the weight of the latest CUVs out there. They can't handle anything more then a gravel road and they are all hugely overweight.

firstwagon says:

"My 95 GC is as tough as stock SUV gets right down to it's solid axles and cast iron drivetrain.... and it weighs 3750 lbs. Nothing uber expensive about it."

Your '95 GC is also significantly smaller than the new GC.

'95 Grand Cherokee
Wheelbase = 105.9"
Length = 176.7"
Width = 69.2"
Height = 64.9"

'11 Grand Cherokee
Wheelbase = 114.8"
Length = 189.8"
Width = 84.8"
Height = 69.4"

That's where much of the extra weight comes from; that and in required safety crash and safety regulations, such as in much tougher roll-over standards.

The GC has always been the "luxury" Jeep. Nothing new there.

_____________

"One of the toughest off roaders I know is the old Samurai and it weighed only about 2000 lbs."

Arguably one of the least safe SUVs ever produced, and certainly not a competitor for the Grand Cherokee in any way, shape or form.

Next time try comparing apples-to-apples, as in other 2010-2011 premium SUVs; and not with a 16 year-old vehicle bearing same name.

"Look at the weight of the latest CUVs out there. They can't handle anything more then a gravel road and they are all hugely overweight."

Also most likely due to much tougher safety standards that vehicles now need to meet, or will shortly need to meet.

That 0-60 time is absolutely pathetic for a 290 hp vehicle --even a Jeep. That alone should give this a failing grade. A toyota 4 runner will eat this thing alive, and is cheaper. In fact, I think about every other vehicle out there, (truck, SUV, or car) with equal horsepower and torque would rape this new Jeep.

That 0-60 time is absolutely pathetic for a 290 hp vehicle --even a Jeep. That alone should give this a failing grade. A toyota 4 runner will eat this thing alive, and is cheaper. In fact, I think about every other vehicle out there, (truck, SUV, or car) with equal horsepower and torque would rape this new Jeep.

for all you haters bmw benz honda lexus all those foreign cars suck if you hate american cars and america leave im sure someone from another country can do your job better and for half the price chryslers going back choke on that

Great discussion, lots of interesting info, not!!! Everybody is sitting here whining about 0-60 and interiors, but the real idea should be efficiency, size and cost. This fails on all those levels, along with many new trucks and suvs. I find it laughable that somebody on this site wrote about the Ram and how they were so happy to get low 20's, but only driving 55mph, but much less if you only went up a few miles per hour. Around here, you practically get run over for not going 80mph, in which case the truck is going to get low teens at best, maybe not even that much. As for acceleration times, the Ram is not 3 seconds faster then this. Both Motor Trend and Car and Driver have the Ram as a 7.4-7.5 truck, 4X4 models, so get your ignorant facts straight.
s
Final thought, who cares about these bigger suvs anymore? Obviously the crowd here is still living in 2000 when things were a lot cheaper, but not now. Also, Moparfan5, brother that was most ignorant, right-wing, POS, diatribe I have seen in a awhile. Its good to know ignorance and stupidity is alive and well here.

A lot of whiners here, especially about the 0-60 times of the V6. 10 years ago, this was a GOOD time. Now it is average, but how many people REALLY care about it. Can't remember the last time I had to worry about my 0-60 times, and I drive a hemi, (in a Magnum) that gets 17 in town and 24 on the highway @ 75-80, BTW. For ANY normal driving experience the V6's acceleration is much more than adequate even for freeway merging. 99% of people never explore the limits of their vehicles so whinging about a few tenths or pounds is completely pointless, here or anywhere else. Final thought, @mrtinspection, perhaps you are an urban dweller who is only interested in driving through a skiff of snow in the winter, but there are many of us who actually NEED a vehicle like this for adverse climate conditions, real off-roading, or sub-urban conditions. These people would never consider a CUV, so while the market may have shrunk, it is still there.