Topic: Preview: 2017 Jeep Compass

[EV-Light]

Was happy to find out you can get the second trim up North 4x4 (not FWD) with a 6 speed manual. Still not sure what trims come with what features.

It's in their website...north = no leather


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dkaz]

My wife prefers cloth anyway, but at least the steering wheel is leather and can be heated with one of the packages.

[Noto]

Take an eeeeeelongated test drive of the exact trim you want to buy.

[tooscoops]

mine seem to be taking forever to show up... did my training on it a couple weeks back. pretty solid vehicle actually. if it offered a v6, i think it would have been the one to go with for nearly all customers of cherokee, renegade and compass...

as it sits, i think anyone who doesn't care about v6 would be happy with it. i drove a couple comparable kia's, hyundais and such and felt it was better... but it's newer, so it should be.

[Noto]

i drove a couple comparable kia's, hyundais and such and felt it was better... but it's newer, so it should be.

I'd be interested in driving a non-trailhawk.

[dirtyjeffer]

i drove a couple comparable kia's, hyundais and such and felt it was better... but it's newer, so it should be.

the reviewers recently did the same thing and disagreed.

the new Compass finished last of the 10 vehicles tested.

http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20170515/comparison-test-2017-compact-suvs-part-2-40-000/

[Noto]

i drove a couple comparable kia's, hyundais and such and felt it was better... but it's newer, so it should be.

the reviewers recently did the same thing and disagreed.

the new Compass finished last of the 10 vehicles tested.

http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20170515/comparison-test-2017-compact-suvs-part-2-40-000/

Ahem, hence why I, one of the reviewers , stated:

I'd be interested in driving a non-trailhawk.

Both the Compass and the Escape suffered from being the wrong trim for the comparison.  Had this been a mild off-road comparison test, the Compass would have done very well.  Similarly, had it been a...um...nah, the trim of Escape provided made very little sense for anyone.  Seriously, those option packages were absurd (especially the $1,550 IIRC option group that equipped 19" blacked out wheels and not much else).

The Cherokee had a number of flaws no matter the trim, however, but the worst parts for me were the suspension (Trailhawk-specific) and the poor handling (tires, suspension). 

Non-Trailhawk issues still included the active-lane keep assist (it was frightening - and no, not the system generally, but this one was tugging me to the right side of every lane even if I was closer to the right side of the lane  ), the powertrain being coarse and unrefined, and the interior ergonomics.

...but it may have finished 6th or 7th if a non-Trailhawk was provided, and the Escape could have been maybe 4th or 5th overall.  Not for sure - it all comes down to the numbers and the voting, but a lot of issues like "Value", "Fuel Economy" and "Powertrain" could have been better if other trims were provided for testing.

[Cord]

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.

Although with the average person these days barely able to add 2 + 2, I'll take the computer readings over some random guy's "hand calculation" any day.

[dirtyjeffer]

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.

Although with the average person these days barely able to add 2 + 2, I'll take the computer readings over some random guy's "hand calculation" any day.

there is no reason the computer is incorrect...the ECU knows exactly how much fuel it has injected into the engine and it knows exactly how many kms were driven...it's simple math.

[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.

Although with the average person these days barely able to add 2 + 2, I'll take the computer readings over some random guy's "hand calculation" any day.

there is no reason the computer is incorrect...the ECU knows exactly how much fuel it has injected into the engine and it knows exactly how many kms were driven...it's simple math.

And yet, they're often inaccurate.

[dirtyjeffer]

there is no reason the computer is incorrect...the ECU knows exactly how much fuel it has injected into the engine and it knows exactly how many kms were driven...it's simple math.

And yet, they're often inaccurate.

i haven't seen a scientific study regarding that, but it would be interesting for someone to actually do it...you can't go by the "first click" when you pump gas...that isn't accurate at all...as i said, the ECU knows precisely how much fuel it has used...there is no reason it wouldn't be accurate.

EDIT: i did find these articles, if that helps:

http://wardsauto.com/blog/when-it-comes-mileage-cars-tell-truth

this article explains why there can be some variation, but as a whole, they are still quite accurate:

http://blog.caranddriver.com/why-your-trip-computer-isnt-giving-accurate-mpg-readings-and-how-to-fix-it/

[tooscoops]

i drove a couple comparable kia's, hyundais and such and felt it was better... but it's newer, so it should be.

the reviewers recently did the same thing and disagreed.

the new Compass finished last of the 10 vehicles tested.

http://www.autotrader.ca/expert/20170515/comparison-test-2017-compact-suvs-part-2-40-000/

meh... i read that and didn't really comment on it because it didn't make much sense to me... the more i read those comparisons, the more i realize that they have some great info.... but are written by people who have probably never bought a new car (or very few, no offense meant). the things they worship and the things they complain about are non-starters to most people. also, as they mention, it really depends on what trim level/packages are sent for the test.

don't mean to put the comparo's down, because as i said, i think they have great info and the reviewers do a great job with what they are given. but to actually think it means the compass is the worst suv or something similar is really ignoring the reality of the car buying public, their needs and the fact that we are all different.

as for the comparison i had done for training, it was on our sport and north vs their equivalent levels... it think their upgraded engines would have helped, but suspension and such really seemed better on ours for the tests i was putting them through (slalom course, washboard, lane change). the thing i took away is more that none of these little suv's are so far off from each other that the average driver would think one was better than the other in that regard without either coaching or bias.

[ChaosphereIX]

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?

the 1.4T is reliable - very much so. Fiat has been making them for years, they are in everything, and I have never heard of any issues.

[dirtyjeffer]

meh... i read that and didn't really comment on it because it didn't make much sense to me... the more i read those comparisons, the more i realize that they have some great info.... but are written by people who have probably never bought a new car (or very few, no offense meant). the things they worship and the things they complain about are non-starters to most people. also, as they mention, it really depends on what trim level/packages are sent for the test.

don't mean to put the comparo's down, because as i said, i think they have great info and the reviewers do a great job with what they are given. but to actually think it means the compass is the worst suv or something similar is really ignoring the reality of the car buying public, their needs and the fact that we are all different.

as for the comparison i had done for training, it was on our sport and north vs their equivalent levels... it think their upgraded engines would have helped, but suspension and such really seemed better on ours for the tests i was putting them through (slalom course, washboard, lane change). the thing i took away is more that none of these little suv's are so far off from each other that the average driver would think one was better than the other in that regard without either coaching or bias.

you make some valid points and i agree.