Topic: Preview: 2017 Jeep Compass

[AutoTrader.ca]

Tidy packaging, competitive tech, and a turbodiesel surprise
Read more...

[Ex-airbalancer]

"Things remain familiar in the 2017 Jeep Compass’ engine bay, where a 2.4L four-cylinder common to the brand’s smaller vehicles sits as the only available motor. Rated at 180 horsepower and 175 lb-ft of torque, it can be matched with either a nine-speed automatic (four-wheel drive), six-speed automatic (front-wheel drive), or six-speed manual gearbox."

What about the turbo diesel surprise ? 

[Noto]

I guess FCA never got the message about doing one thing well as opposed to quantity over quality.

Please tell me the patriot isn't coming back, too...

[OliverD]

I guess FCA never got the message about doing one thing well as opposed to quantity over quality.

Please tell me the patriot isn't coming back, too...

It isn't. It was effectively replaced by the Renegade.

I've come to terms with the fact that Jeep now has three offerings that are very similar in price and size. The way I see it, the Cherokee stands out by being the only one available with a V6 and the Renegade is for someone looking for more traditional and/or extroverted Jeep styling. I wouldn't be surprised to see Jeep drop the base (steelies and black door handles) version of the Cherokee to make room for the Compass.

[EV-Light]

I like this!! AWD + manual for the win...just wish it had a better engine.

And yeah no diesel for this, but the Diesel engine offered in other markets make this a very slow poke 0-62 in 13.5s is not acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SaskSpecV]

No doubt FCA has a LOT of problems right now, but their "dump cars and focus on CUV" strategy is interesting.  I'm not sure how viable it is long-term - they'd better move quickly onto something else once the CUV fad starts to get stale - but for now, having 3 separate but overlapping CUVs in the Jeep showroom is unique.  Not to mention the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler, and their variants.

The 2.4 Tigershark doesn't get a lot of love, but it's comparable output to the larger compact CUV class, and a lot more power than the subcompact CUVs (Juke excepted).  How's reliability on that engine?  I'm assuming it's better than the 1.4T from Fiat 
I hope the M/T isn't as crappy as it supposedly was in the Dart though.

Tooscoops, with all the overlap in size, mechanicals, and pricing between the Renegade/Compass/Cherokee, how are you going to differentiate these models for the customers?

[revalations]

No doubt FCA has a LOT of problems right now, but their "dump cars and focus on CUV" strategy is interesting.  I'm not sure how viable it is long-term - they'd better move quickly onto something else once the CUV fad starts to get stale - but for now, having 3 separate but overlapping CUVs in the Jeep showroom is unique.  Not to mention the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler, and their variants.

The 2.4 Tigershark doesn't get a lot of love, but it's comparable output to the larger compact CUV class, and a lot more power than the subcompact CUVs (Juke excepted).  How's reliability on that engine?  I'm assuming it's better than the 1.4T from Fiat 
I hope the M/T isn't as crappy as it supposedly was in the Dart though.

Tooscoops, with all the overlap in size, mechanicals, and pricing between the Renegade/Compass/Cherokee, how are you going to differentiate these models for the customers?

I think Jeep is the only bright spot at FCA right now, they are milking it for all its worth. Throw new products to the only brand that's actually gaining market share, no matter the overlap, folks will buy because it's a JEEP.

[dirtyjeffer]

i actually don't mind the looks of this unit, especially in TrailHawk guise...not sure of the pricing, but a decent engine with competitive power (from other makes' base units) and a nice looking interior is always a good starting point...i think they'll move some of these (certainly more than the previous unit).

[EV-Light]

No doubt FCA has a LOT of problems right now, but their "dump cars and focus on CUV" strategy is interesting.  I'm not sure how viable it is long-term - they'd better move quickly onto something else once the CUV fad starts to get stale - but for now, having 3 separate but overlapping CUVs in the Jeep showroom is unique.  Not to mention the Grand Cherokee and Wrangler, and their variants.

The 2.4 Tigershark doesn't get a lot of love, but it's comparable output to the larger compact CUV class, and a lot more power than the subcompact CUVs (Juke excepted).  How's reliability on that engine?  I'm assuming it's better than the 1.4T from Fiat 
I hope the M/T isn't as crappy as it supposedly was in the Dart though.

Tooscoops, with all the overlap in size, mechanicals, and pricing between the Renegade/Compass/Cherokee, how are you going to differentiate these models for the customers?

CUV market will not get stale, in fact it will only grow larger.
Toyota predicts that by 2019 (yup, 2y and some away) the RAV4 will be the best selling vehicle in its line up in the US, same with the new compact CUV, assumption is that it will take over Corolla with ease...

[OliverD]

i actually don't mind the looks of this unit, especially in TrailHawk guise...not sure of the pricing, but a decent engine with competitive power (from other makes' base units) and a nice looking interior is always a good starting point...i think they'll move some of these (certainly more than the previous unit).

I think we're going to see the price creep up quite a bit though. Currently the Compass undercuts the Renegade by about $4k but I can't see the new one being cheaper.

Interestingly, both Patriot and Compass sales peaked in Canada in 2007 (the first full year for both models) but in the U.S. they are both on track to have their best sales year ever this year. In fact the Compass has already surpassed its best sales year with two months to go.

They're going to sell about 200k of the old models alongside 100k Renegades and 200k Cherokees. So half a million compact CUVs spread across four models. Will they be able to sustain those numbers once the old Compass and Patriot are retired?

[tooscoops]

Tooscoops, with all the overlap in size, mechanicals, and pricing between the Renegade/Compass/Cherokee, how are you going to differentiate these models for the customers?

it will come down to customers needs... style (though polarizing) = renegade, value = compass, towing/performance = cherokee...

of course lots of overlap, but that will be the basics.

i don't like what they are doing, but i guess it's what they have decided... no small hatchback, just lift em all and call em jeeps.

[Noto]

The 2.4 Tigershark doesn't get a lot of love, but it's comparable output to the larger compact CUV class, and a lot more power than the subcompact CUVs (Juke excepted).  How's reliability on that engine? 

I can tell you its real world fuel economy is less than stellar.

[tooscoops]

i just had a customer come in telling me how much she loves her fuel economy in her cherokee with it... computer is reading 7.2... (4x2 sport). came from a patriot where she was give or take 10l/100 recorded.

meh... i think real world *can* be quite good... but everyone wants everything. rather than someone thinking they are too heavy on the gas, or that their driving habits cause poor fuel consumption, they want to blame the car. some cars get similar consumption no matter how they are driven... i think the 2.4 seems to be more reliant on a light foot.

[Noto]

You know I Adore you, tooscoops!  Just sayin'

I've posted about my Cherokee rental in Miami Beach in June, where it got a solid 15mpg-ish less than the Elantra i had the week before also in Florida. Any time I got the Dart (2.4L) from Windsor to Toronto/Guelph, I usually averaged in the mid to high 7s compared to high 5s, low 6s in the Corolla or Focus.

While I'm not suggesting necessarily that the engine is a pig, my experiences with it have not been stellar in terms of fuel economy only. It's otherwise smooth and competent. Nothing terribly wrong with it.

[84im]

she loves her fuel economy in her cherokee with it... computer is reading 7.2... (4x2 sport)

Anyone who believes computer fuel consumption readings are accurate are fooling themselves.

[OliverD]

she loves her fuel economy in her cherokee with it... computer is reading 7.2... (4x2 sport)

Anyone who believes computer fuel consumption readings are accurate are fooling themselves.

Yep.

[tooscoops]

meh... from all my calculations, the fca ones are quite accurate, for better or worse! but i do recognize that some aren't (or some people don't trust them), hence my inclusion of how it was calculated.

and yeah... somewhere in the 7's is all i expect from an engine putting out 170+ hp... always wish is was it was better though!! i had thought you meant it was like 9's or something... heh...

[EV-Light]

Tooscoops, with all the overlap in size, mechanicals, and pricing between the Renegade/Compass/Cherokee, how are you going to differentiate these models for the customers?

it will come down to customers needs... style (though polarizing) = renegade, value = compass, towing/performance = cherokee...

of course lots of overlap, but that will be the basics.

i don't like what they are doing, but i guess it's what they have decided... no small hatchback, just lift em all and call em jeeps.

I like the Compass! Might try another FCA if price is right and AWD + manual is reality (what really attracts me to it) bet this would be able to fulfill my towing needs too.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Noto]

meh... from all my calculations, the fca ones are quite accurate, for better or worse! but i do recognize that some aren't (or some people don't trust them), hence my inclusion of how it was calculated.

and yeah... somewhere in the 7's is all i expect from an engine putting out 170+ hp... always wish is was it was better though!! i had thought you meant it was like 9's or something... heh...

I like MOAR POWER as much as the next forum member, but I'm unwilling to take a 1.5L/100km highway hit for the marginal betterment, especially given the Dart's weight issue. Irrelevant now given that the Dart is dead, but that Cherokee (FWD) I had was really not impressing me in ideal conditions in Florida highway driving. Getting 25mpg was a shame when the last gen Elantra netted 42mpg.

[dirtyjeffer]

meh... from all my calculations, the fca ones are quite accurate, for better or worse! but i do recognize that some aren't (or some people don't trust them), hence my inclusion of how it was calculated.

and yeah... somewhere in the 7's is all i expect from an engine putting out 170+ hp... always wish is was it was better though!! i had thought you meant it was like 9's or something... heh...

I like MOAR POWER as much as the next forum member, but I'm unwilling to take a 1.5L/100km highway hit for the marginal betterment, especially given the Dart's weight issue. Irrelevant now given that the Dart is dead, but that Cherokee (FWD) I had was really not impressing me in ideal conditions in Florida highway driving. Getting 25mpg was a shame when the last gen Elantra netted 42mpg.

i'll dump on FCA as much as the next guy, but that's not really a fair comparison...a slipper shaped Elantra with about 140 HP vs an SUV with 170 HP...that SUV will always use more fuel...it has a larger, more powerful engine, and isn't as slippery in the wind.