She's a looker. Chrysler cannot afford to mess this up. Beautiful car. The perfect engine options would be the 2.4 Tigershark, 3.2 Pentastar, 3.6 Pentastar, and 3.0 diesel. One can only hope!
The 3.2L and 3.6L are the same block - no needs to lower the stroke in this car - it doesn't need the extra 1MPG and wouldn't offer any fuel savings. To remain competitive against its rivals, it needs to be cheap to produce (fewer option choices, so not having 4 different engines available) and has to have competitive numbers. If the Camry V6 has 268hp/248lb-ft, then the logical choice is to leave the 283-305hp 3.6L (depending on tuning), which will be similar enough in fuel economy, but have a power advantage to rival V6s. The 3.2L at 271hp/239ft-lbs doesn't 'wow' the competition in either fuel economy, nor power. It COULD work, but the 3.6L is no more expensive to produce.
I suspect the Cherokee had fuel economy more on the mind as CUVs are much more 'intense' on that criterion than the mid-size sedans in the US.
I dont see any Toyota/Subaru styling in this car at all. hell the car looks great. But, Audi most definitely, good job Chrysler.
I see the BRZ/FRS in the rear, but I concur that it's much more Audi-esque.