Topic: 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee; Day 1

[coast]

I met I don't buy the off road ability equals heavy argument.  I didn't mean to say don't buy the Grand Cherokee (it just looked that way after I posted)

[kard00d]

You could probably argue the Grand Cherokee was the original crossover, based on the fact it has never been frame based - it's been a unibody from day one.   How many high ground clearance 4 wheel drive  unibody vehicles were there back then?  Jeep has had them for 26 years since the downsized Cherokee!  

[Mitlov]

Don't buy it.  My 95 Grand Cherokee is likely much tougher and better off road and it only weighs 3750 lbs.  They are even about the same size.

All 15-year-old cars are lighter than their modern equivalents.  All 15-year-old cars are also deathtraps when compared to their modern equivalents. 

I thought you were comparing the modern GC's weight to other modern SUVs--that's the context where the "because it's more off-road capable" explanation comes in.

[Erik]

i don't get why the performance of the V6 is such an issue. If you don't like it, just check the Hemi box, and all is good. For a lot of people, the V6 will be plenty powerful enough.

As Mitlov also said, if the GC is too big for you, there are a bunch of smaller Jeeps available too. You pays your money....

[Ice]

Had the 2011 Grand Cherokee as a rental the other day. The V6 is fast enough... it's not quick but it does get going in a pinch which is all that most people are going to care about. Certainly drives like a big heavy vehicle from my perspective... going back to my Corolla and it felt like I was driving a cloud in comparison. The weight is confidence inspiring until you want to take a corner hard...

[CraigS]

 I'm not too impressed with the new vehicle. The front looks good but the back I've mistaken a few time in traffic as one of the lower end Chrysler products which is not a good thing when you're paying these prices.

Interior is better but still behind some of its European competition. I also find the interior space under whelming considering the exterior size. In the end the question of durability and everything working long-term would be a big concern for me as Chrysler products do not have a good reputation for durability. I'd pass on this vehicle.

[nsmyhte]

Poor outward visibility is not only bad on-road but bad for off-roading too which is where Jeep wants you to take this thing.

[aaronk]

i don't get why the performance of the V6 is such an issue. If you don't like it, just check the Hemi box, and all is good. For a lot of people, the V6 will be plenty powerful enough.

As Mitlov also said, if the GC is too big for you, there are a bunch of smaller Jeeps available too. You pays your money....

It's an issue because Jeep just released a brand-new-from-the-ground-up range topping SUV with a 300 horsepower V6 that takes nearly the same amount of time to get to 60 as a 2007 Chevy Aveo. I'm not being a smart-ass, that's true, the Aveo does it in 10.5. Why should a buyer have to buy a honking 5.7L V8 to get decent performance when Toyota's new 4Runner will do 60 in mid-to-high 7's and is at least as capable as the new Grand, and in trail-edition is even more capable. I always get a kick out of Top Gear when Jeremy Clarkson goes on a rant about American cars and 'how do they get so little power out of such big engines?' Why bother with engineering, efficient turbocharged or diesel engines and lightweight materials when we can just 'check the hemi box'.

0-60 times are obviously over-emphasized as nobody tromps on the gas at every light, but it's an easy benchmark for a vehicle's capacity for acceleration. If this was a $25K crossover no biggie, but if I'm getting into a luxury SUV I would expect more, especially for $40K. It would also be OK if the fuel mileage was spectacular - often diesel counterparts in larger German SUV's are a little lazier from the stop light but pay dividends in frugality, but not so in this case.

I'm not saying it's a deal-buster, it's just disappointing. Lose the weight and everyone would benefit - what's the harm in that? Ford figured it out with the EcoBoost and that's going to do very well for them. In fact, compared to the EcoBoost, all the higher-end engines in the Jeep/Dodge/Chrysler lineup look like dinosaurs.

[cruzzer]

I find it hard to believe an automotive journalist wouldn't 'know much about Jeeps'. Where have you been James?

Hats off to Jeep and Chrysler for a vastly improved product.

[dekeman]

When did it become slow? Well before the 2010 4Runner could run to 100km/h about 2 seconds quicker.

[Shnak]

The one thing I noticed over many of the competition is the large cargo area. Add in the fold flat rear seats and there is plenty of room for those Christmas gifts, like, say, a big screen TV? But this does cut down on rear seat room, mostnoticeably is headroom, as it is very much in short supply in the rear.

I like having a large cargo area as much as everyone else... but at the expense of rear seat room? For such a big vehicle, I think it's inexcusable that four tall adults can't be comfortable in it. Does it have one of those panoramic sunroofs that eats up rear headroom?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

It's an issue because Jeep just released a brand-new-from-the-ground-up range topping SUV with a 300 horsepower V6 that takes nearly the same amount of time to get to 60 as a 2007 Chevy Aveo. I'm not being a smart-ass, that's true, the Aveo does it in 10.5. Why should a buyer have to buy a honking 5.7L V8 to get decent performance when Toyota's new 4Runner will do 60 in mid-to-high 7's and is at least as capable as the new Grand, and in trail-edition is even more capable. I always get a kick out of Top Gear when Jeremy Clarkson goes on a rant about American cars and 'how do they get so little power out of such big engines?' Why bother with engineering, efficient turbocharged or diesel engines and lightweight materials when we can just 'check the hemi box'.

0-60 times are obviously over-emphasized as nobody tromps on the gas at every light, but it's an easy benchmark for a vehicle's capacity for acceleration. If this was a $25K crossover no biggie, but if I'm getting into a luxury SUV I would expect more, especially for $40K. It would also be OK if the fuel mileage was spectacular - often diesel counterparts in larger German SUV's are a little lazier from the stop light but pay dividends in frugality, but not so in this case.

I'm not saying it's a deal-buster, it's just disappointing. Lose the weight and everyone would benefit - what's the harm in that? Ford figured it out with the EcoBoost and that's going to do very well for them. In fact, compared to the EcoBoost, all the higher-end engines in the Jeep/Dodge/Chrysler lineup look like dinosaurs.

I can't remember where, but one off road test noted that the 4Runner creaked and groaned considerably more than the Cherokee did off road. Rigid structures usually result in a weight penalty, especially in big open boxes like these.

At least with the Cherokee, a V8 is available which drops 0-60 down around 7.2 seconds or so, and apparently there will be an 500+hp SRT-8 version if you're into that kind of thing.

[wing]

I find it hard to believe an automotive journalist wouldn't 'know much about Jeeps'. Where have you been James?

SUV's aren't my thing, high performance cars are.  Unfortunately I can't get one of those every week

[wing]

Shnak, yes panoramic sunroof is probably the problem.

[paul246]

Just the latest rendition of an expensive poser-mobile. I'll stick with my good-ole Wrangler TJ with body-on-frame construction and a torquey inline six anyday. Nothing fancy but a true SUV it is.

Oh, and I'm with Brent on the diesel!

[Seafoam]

Just the latest rendition of an expensive poser-mobile. I'll stick with my good-ole Wrangler TJ with body-on-frame construction and a torquey inline six anyday. Nothing fancy but a true SUV it is.

Oh, and I'm with Brent on the diesel!

What's the ride like on one of those?

[Bubba]

Car and Driver reported a 0-60 time of 8.4 seconds with the V6.  I trust their results.

[paul246]

Just the latest rendition of an expensive poser-mobile. I'll stick with my good-ole Wrangler TJ with body-on-frame construction and a torquey inline six anyday. Nothing fancy but a true SUV it is.

Oh, and I'm with Brent on the diesel!

What's the ride like on one of those?

Far better than the older YJ and CJ series, but you still know it is a 1/4 ton truck.

[Cory X]

When did it become slow? Well before the 2010 4Runner could run to 100km/h about 2 seconds quicker.

Jeep was always the best performing SUV's....

Mid 6 second range 0-100k in the 90's with the 5.9L V-8..
8 flat with the 5.2L V-8..
9.5 with the 4.0 6cyl....
These years Toyota was 11-16 second 0-100km/hr..thats if the toyota's head gasket held up !! Big problem !

The bigger,heavier 1999-2004,
High 6 sec with the 4.7 H.O
4.7 V-8 was 7 flat.
.8-9 with the 4.0 L 6 cyl..

The even heavier 2005-2010 Grand Cherokee,
3.7 V-6 around 9.5 sec 0-100..
4.7  low 7 sec 08-10 and -8 seconds with the 4.7 of 2005-2007
5.7 Hemi high 6's low 7's.
6.1 HEMI 4.5 0-100  !!! Fastest period !!


The even bigger/heavier 2011

8 sec 0-100k,Road Tests for a Durango was low 8's so I would assume the v-6 Jeep would be the same .

high 6-low 7 sec 0-100 k with the 5.7 Hemi


Future 6.4 Hemi SRT 4 second range for sure !!

[Cory X]

When did < 10secs to 100 become SLOW for an SUV? 

When it got 300 hp.  My old 95 4.0 Grand Cherokee has the same performance with 190hp.  I'd expect more from the new engine.

Check the weight of the vehicle,your 95 is very small and under 3500 lbs,the 2011 is 5000 lbs and wider,longer,taller !!!!