bluecollarjock
New member
Thanks neighbor
Considering purchasing a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee
- Thread starter Roadkill
- Start date
Thanks neighbor
Blitzkrieg
New member
Capt'n T4R
Junior Member
I actually considered the same at the time of when looking for a new vehicle however I read (at the time) 43 review of the 2014 JGC and couldn't believe how negative they were regarding the problems they were encountering with the infotainment system. I believe the Chrysler has since fixed the "grounding" issue with wiring but it still made me sway the other way. I too love the look and I rent these all the time for work just because I love the way the drive on the highway. Just haven't convinced myself to trade into a Jeep. We currently have a 3rd, 4th and 5th generation in the drive. But go with whatever suites your lifestyle the best
Jernik
New member
AMAZING! It left the pavement and didn't burst into flames! :lmao:
https://youtu.be/nxqL320GSZ0
eep:
https://youtu.be/nxqL320GSZ0
eep:
Jetboy
New member
What is it about low range that you think helps?
Jetboy
New member
Closest I can find direct comparison is a Patriot
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ow6-g5KrCTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
vs
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hrdb_UVTa20" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Subaru easily outperforms the Patriot. I'm trying to find a direct outback v GC on the same hill.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ow6-g5KrCTY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
vs
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hrdb_UVTa20" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Subaru easily outperforms the Patriot. I'm trying to find a direct outback v GC on the same hill.
Last edited:
I recently traded in my 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland. It was a nice vehicle with lots of nice creature comforts. I traded it in on a 2016 4R-TRD because:
I absolutely couldn't stand how tough to see out of it was. The A-pillar is gigantic and in an absurdly bad location.
The V6 engine mine had felt gutless. The fuel economy was good, but you had to absolutely stomp on the gas to get it to more anywhere. I know the OP mentioned the diesel, but those are harder to find and come at a premium.
It felt like a CAR. Grand Cherokees have decent off-road ability, but they don't give any impression of that to the driver. You sit lower than in a 4Runner, and the unibody construction does not give it a "truck" like feel.
If you want a decently capable SUV that drives more like a crossover and had a ton of features, get the Jeep. If you want something that feels awesome to drive, has more capability, resale value and Toyota reliability than go with the 4Runner
I absolutely couldn't stand how tough to see out of it was. The A-pillar is gigantic and in an absurdly bad location.
The V6 engine mine had felt gutless. The fuel economy was good, but you had to absolutely stomp on the gas to get it to more anywhere. I know the OP mentioned the diesel, but those are harder to find and come at a premium.
It felt like a CAR. Grand Cherokees have decent off-road ability, but they don't give any impression of that to the driver. You sit lower than in a 4Runner, and the unibody construction does not give it a "truck" like feel.
If you want a decently capable SUV that drives more like a crossover and had a ton of features, get the Jeep. If you want something that feels awesome to drive, has more capability, resale value and Toyota reliability than go with the 4Runner
Jetboy
New member
Here's a forester smoking a Wrangler. Same hill. Different angles.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cBaUCHiJxxs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9iEbT5Hjf9c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cBaUCHiJxxs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9iEbT5Hjf9c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
pinetar
New member
Not to repeat myself too many times, but I just came out of an early trade in with my 2014 WK2 as well.
Reasons for trading in for the T4R came down to:
My WK2 did surprisingly well off road, but it's lack of wheel travel from the all-around independent suspension leaves a lot to desire. It does make it up the hill, but not as comfortably or easily as the 4runner does.
On road, obviously the WK2 wins, but I knew that before, after test driving and upon purchase and the trade off was worth it to me. In the end, I still have just as much fun in the 4runner daily and feel better about putting my money, time and effort into it. Whereas with the Jeep, I was just waiting for the day the warranty expired and I would have to eventually sacrifice it to the local dealer gauntlet.
No regrets choosing the Toyota at all.
Reasons for trading in for the T4R came down to:
- Long term reliability
- Ease of being able to work on it myself
- Reputation
- Off-Road(ability)
- More and better quality aftermarket parts
My WK2 did surprisingly well off road, but it's lack of wheel travel from the all-around independent suspension leaves a lot to desire. It does make it up the hill, but not as comfortably or easily as the 4runner does.
On road, obviously the WK2 wins, but I knew that before, after test driving and upon purchase and the trade off was worth it to me. In the end, I still have just as much fun in the 4runner daily and feel better about putting my money, time and effort into it. Whereas with the Jeep, I was just waiting for the day the warranty expired and I would have to eventually sacrifice it to the local dealer gauntlet.
No regrets choosing the Toyota at all.
Last edited:
If the GCs have the same shitty 9 speed ZF transmission as my 2015 Jeep Cherokee KL (yes, unfortunately I have one of those as well), then it's a clear NO. FCA likes to QA their new gizmos on their customers and I don't appreciate that at all. At 8000 miles, believe it or not, I had to change the entire transmission due to a design fault. That rubbish transmission is in the 2014 KL as well. And the idiots then thought it's a good idea to stick it into the Renegades as well. They "fixed" the software to avoid the second gear as much as possible and as a result avoid a costly mass recall. Fortunately for me, I forced the transmission to fail so they could do nothing more but to replace it with one featuring the apparently fixed design. It actually drives fine now, but the confidence is lost.
Actually, even if it's not using a ZF transmission, it's still a NO.
The only thing I like about the Jeeps is the interior, with the exception of the Wrangler of course. It's comfy and modern, perfect for long drives. The 4Runner feels like coming from the prehistoric era in comparison. Nevertheless, my wife and I always take the 4Runner on the trails. It's much more capable and most importantly reliable. Here's my Cherokee on a trail, from the times we didn't have the 4Runner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBzrgUU0dI
Of course, it would have helped if the Cherokee had better articulation and the GC's air suspension. But that's another thing prone to failing.
Nevertheless a decent performance though.
And here's our beloved 4Runner:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsCNUwmd7G1TFOkZxkkCFhQ
Those cars couldn't even start climbing
Btw, I found the "Cliffhanger" by mistake, during one of our trips. Didn't use the locker, just the A-TRAC. Here's how easy it is to climb it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFAtRsL9wjs
Actually, even if it's not using a ZF transmission, it's still a NO.
The only thing I like about the Jeeps is the interior, with the exception of the Wrangler of course. It's comfy and modern, perfect for long drives. The 4Runner feels like coming from the prehistoric era in comparison. Nevertheless, my wife and I always take the 4Runner on the trails. It's much more capable and most importantly reliable. Here's my Cherokee on a trail, from the times we didn't have the 4Runner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abBzrgUU0dI
Of course, it would have helped if the Cherokee had better articulation and the GC's air suspension. But that's another thing prone to failing.
Nevertheless a decent performance though.
And here's our beloved 4Runner:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsCNUwmd7G1TFOkZxkkCFhQ
Those cars couldn't even start climbing
Btw, I found the "Cliffhanger" by mistake, during one of our trips. Didn't use the locker, just the A-TRAC. Here's how easy it is to climb it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFAtRsL9wjs
Last edited:
e60ral
Banned
engine braking downhill, more torque to tackle obstacles at slow speed (i.e. safer and with less potential for damage), more torque for soft sand-type terrain, recoveries, better throttle control, less use of clutch needed (for manuals), etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AWMA8YeHU
Jetboy
New member
engine braking downhill, more torque to tackle obstacles at slow speed (i.e. safer and with less potential for damage), more torque for soft sand-type terrain, recoveries, better throttle control, less use of clutch needed (for manuals), etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AWMA8YeHU
Really? Because you'll need that in a crossover so often...
There is no plausible scenario where a GC is going to need a low range. It simply lacks the body clearance to ever go on the types of obstacles where ultra low speed and torque modulation are critical. Not gonna happen. The reason the GC has a 2 speed transfer case is because Fiat/Chrysler doesn't have the resources to re-engineer the drivetrain. It's sticking with off the shelf parts because they're available. Not because a station wagon needs a low range.
In 1st gear a highlander has a final drive ratio of 20.24:1. Factor in tire size and the engine revolutions per foot of travel are 55.85.
Lets compare to a Jeep WJ. A WJ in 1st gear high has a final drive ratio of 10.65:1. And a revolution per foot with 31" tires of 109.67. A current highlander has the same gearing as a WJ would with a 2:1 low range. If you had a Dana 20 in a WJ - it would be nearly identical in low range to just 1st gear in a highlander.
It's more than low enough for anywhere a crossover is going. In the next iteration I'm sure the GC will update to something more like it's GLK sibling and drop the low range.
pinetar
New member
I was in a number of situations off road where I needed to use my low range, at least 10 times by the end of the 3 year ownership of my WK2...so please, save your presumptions about it not being able enough to use that function. Obviously you have no clue.
Last edited:
1engineer
Moderator
engine braking downhill, more torque to tackle obstacles at slow speed (i.e. safer and with less potential for damage), more torque for soft sand-type terrain, recoveries, better throttle control, less use of clutch needed (for manuals), etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4AWMA8YeHU
Hate to burst your bubble man but in reality low range won't give you much. Why? Because on dirt, mud, sand and snow (even dry pavement) your tires can only get so much grip before they break traction. If you have the ability to transmit enough torque in standard range to overcome that adhesion and break traction then any additional torque is useless. What that leaves you is control-ability. Low range will give you the ability to have a finer metering ability of torque up to wheel spin. Can this help? Sure, in limited situations but if you watch the video of the Subaru climbing the hill low range wouldn't have helped as it had the ability to break traction (which is max torque) and any additional torque would be wasted. Usually low range, especially in the hands of the inexperienced, just gives you the ability to get stuck quicker and deeper.
I use low range for torque control in very specific applications, which means I rarely use low range.
e60ral
Banned
I hate to burst your bubble man, but not every hill descent is on snow and not every driver is an idiot. if you have to ride your brakes all day because you don't have enough engine braking you are going to cook them or have to stop all the time to take a break. If you want to go and tackle hills by replacing gearing with momentum, you are going to damage things by bouncing the bottom against stuff or worse shatter CV's when a spinning wheel hits something wrong. You don't need 4wd low all day, but when you need it it makes things safer and slower.
FWD-based AWD systems are not the same as a 4wd system with a transfer case and true low range (i.e 4WD not AWD), they are not in the same class.
I hate to bust your bubble, but a Toyota Highlander is not getting everywhere that a WK2 can go
alico268
New member
Did you watch the video [MENTION=113024]Jernik[/MENTION] posted: https://youtu.be/nxqL320GSZ0 ?
That definitely looks like a scenario where the GC was in low range. Granted, it made it through the run looking like an 80-year old attempting yoga, but it still did it.
1engineer
Moderator
Nobody said it would. Many vehicles have DAC and it is quite useful. Low range is nice in that situation but it suffers from the same issue of tire adhesion to surface. I hate going down a rocky hill and have my wheels start sliding. Even worse is a muddy or snow covered hill. Now, calling someone like [MENTION=118321]Jetboy[/MENTION] a troll is pretty funny. He has offered valuable insight on many technical posts in the past and is a valued member here. We have not always agreed on things but I respect his opinion. If you go back and read his posts above he was merely saying an AWD will go a lot of places and is suitable for most applications. Nothing else and the only reason I replied originally was your blatant misuse of troll.
Low range has it's place. Unfortunately is is a very limited place.
e60ral
Banned
Yeah, he did:
it's a unibody with IFS, but it's not in the same class as FWD-based AWD vehicles
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
