HP is relevant to absolute acceleration, which is what I was commenting on. The two trucks should feel similar in day-to-day conditions, with the Cherokee having the advantage when you mat the skinny pedal. I drive like granny, so all that extra power in the high rpm range would seldom be seen by me.
Fourwheeler.com 2015 Fourwheeler of the Year
- Thread starter STX4Runner
- Start date
BlackWorksInc
New member
While that's all true, keep in mind that Horsepower and Torque represent two different measurements (of which Horsepower partially relies on Torque.) I have always seen it expressed that Torque is more representative of low speed work potential while Horsepower is more accurate for maintaining momentum of a vehicle when it has already started moving.
In the automotive world, Torque is represented as a vehicle's potential "work" ability. In that unlike how Torque is normally measured in a static environment (i.e. Torque usually does not mean movement will occur), in the automotive world Torque provides the "Work" of the vehicle to move weight.
Horsepower more accurately represents the vehicle's ability to gain and maintain speed once in motion as it is easier to accelerate/maintain speed once an object is in motion than it is to start it from a dead stop.
To understand this, think of the difference between a sports car and a truck. The sports car has an enormous amount of horsepower available, but the torque is used for speed through gearing. There's not a lot of work needed on the low end of the RPM spectrum to keep that sports roaring down the freeway. Less torque is needed to maintain/accelerate once the vehicle is in motion and the engine can rev high without it being loaded up.
A truck on the other hand, may have the same size engine producing the same amount of horsepower. That horsepower isn't as important as the Torque harnessed for doing work through gearing. The truck can't reach high speeds like the sports car, but it can pull and push huge amounts of weight that the sports car cannot.
This is partially why you can easily spot an engine's designed power band by looking at its HP/TQ bias. Most car engines sport higher HP than TQ because they produce more potential speed than a Truck that produces a higher work potential at lower speeds.
Of course then we can start talking about gearing, transmissions, weight, aerodynamics, ect. But as a BASIC guideline; Horsepower is usually better suited for cars as a primary power measurement and Torque is more suited for a Truck/SUV's ability to physically do work.
A car, boat, truck, airplane, train... just doesn't care what you call it and hence it doesn't care about the torque vs. horsepower argument.
You are right in that the torque measurement can be used to determine if the power band is steep or flat (think diesel vs. gas), but that torque measurement is really just a second power measurement point. Yes torque & rpm can be used to calculate horsepower, but again horsepower is constant through a drivetrain and hence one needs to know less about any given vehicle presuming the drivetrains are similarly designed (a 9 speed or cvt should be better at keeping a vehicle in a power or efficiency band than a similar 5 speed).
Here's what 5000 ft-lbs can do, but note how slow it does work (moving something): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OY40gkE0N8&ab_channel=PaulAffleck
What was this thread about again? :focus:
jrandom
New member
That is the part of your post I liked :banana:
3wbdriver
New member
But I would bet you dollars to donuts that transmission is programmed so it keeps the engine in its peak TORQUE range all other things being considered. :wink2:
Orc
New member
The 4Runner recall isnt really a recall just a running board install issue. The tsb is for the tpms system lol.
The dodge seems to have some real issues.
BlackWorksInc
New member
So just a small update, I finally had the displeasure of driving a Cherokee at work for a bit. Had a '14 Latitude I had to do a used vehicle inspection on and I have to say that I am not at all impressed by these things.
Acceleration? If it isn't skittering off the line (tires were decent enough that this shouldn't have been an issue) its struggling (the 2.4L is woefully underpowered in this vehicle after you get off the line, it really struggles uphill,) shifting is something like this:
Moderate acceleration is like: High rev... jerk, High Rev... jerk, High rev.. jerk (oh don't worry you got like 4-5 gears to do this with until you hit 45-ish!) If you do a hard acceleration its just High rev... JERK!
I don't know what the hell 6-9 gears are for because you don't feel the damn thing even shifting above 5th gear (and down shifting down a steep grade from 9 to 5 you don't see or feel the RPMs drop until 5th gear... so I have no idea what the hell the extra gears are really doing...)
The interior wasn't bad, but its got plenty of hard plastic to go with soft touch material, in my opnion some of the interior design is pretty bad too (plastic trays that are cheap looking, remind me of office depot paper clip organizers and the "infotainment" screen almost makes an iphone look large... I swear Chry-crap has some of the smallest damn screens they use in their vehicles with giant thick bezels that make them even smaller looking!) But the interior wasn't all bad, I did like the design and feel of the soft touch; I'd say it's a good Rav4 competitor in that respect and the cargo space in the passenger seat is an ingenious use of space (does the seat pad float too?
) I wasn't impressed by the fit and finish, some of the headliner wasn't tucked into the panels and some panels didn't line up (was obvious factory issue, not because of being a used vehicle with 20k, you could tell the difference.)
Honestly even trying to shoehorn this crap into the same category as the 4Runner is a joke, it truly is 100% a Rav4 competitor if anything.
Acceleration? If it isn't skittering off the line (tires were decent enough that this shouldn't have been an issue) its struggling (the 2.4L is woefully underpowered in this vehicle after you get off the line, it really struggles uphill,) shifting is something like this:
Moderate acceleration is like: High rev... jerk, High Rev... jerk, High rev.. jerk (oh don't worry you got like 4-5 gears to do this with until you hit 45-ish!) If you do a hard acceleration its just High rev... JERK!
I don't know what the hell 6-9 gears are for because you don't feel the damn thing even shifting above 5th gear (and down shifting down a steep grade from 9 to 5 you don't see or feel the RPMs drop until 5th gear... so I have no idea what the hell the extra gears are really doing...)
The interior wasn't bad, but its got plenty of hard plastic to go with soft touch material, in my opnion some of the interior design is pretty bad too (plastic trays that are cheap looking, remind me of office depot paper clip organizers and the "infotainment" screen almost makes an iphone look large... I swear Chry-crap has some of the smallest damn screens they use in their vehicles with giant thick bezels that make them even smaller looking!) But the interior wasn't all bad, I did like the design and feel of the soft touch; I'd say it's a good Rav4 competitor in that respect and the cargo space in the passenger seat is an ingenious use of space (does the seat pad float too?
) I wasn't impressed by the fit and finish, some of the headliner wasn't tucked into the panels and some panels didn't line up (was obvious factory issue, not because of being a used vehicle with 20k, you could tell the difference.) Honestly even trying to shoehorn this crap into the same category as the 4Runner is a joke, it truly is 100% a Rav4 competitor if anything.
Curly Jefferson
New member
So just a small update, I finally had the displeasure of driving a Cherokee at work for a bit. Had a '14 Latitude I had to do a used vehicle inspection on and I have to say that I am not at all impressed by these things.
Acceleration? If it isn't skittering off the line (tires were decent enough that this shouldn't have been an issue) its struggling (the 2.4L is woefully underpowered in this vehicle after you get off the line, it really struggles uphill,) shifting is something like this:
Moderate acceleration is like: High rev... jerk, High Rev... jerk, High rev.. jerk (oh don't worry you got like 4-5 gears to do this with until you hit 45-ish!) If you do a hard acceleration its just High rev... JERK!
I don't know what the hell 6-9 gears are for because you don't feel the damn thing even shifting above 5th gear (and down shifting down a steep grade from 9 to 5 you don't see or feel the RPMs drop until 5th gear... so I have no idea what the hell the extra gears are really doing...)
The interior wasn't bad, but its got plenty of hard plastic to go with soft touch material, in my opnion some of the interior design is pretty bad too (plastic trays that are cheap looking, remind me of office depot paper clip organizers and the "infotainment" screen almost makes an iphone look large... I swear Chry-crap has some of the smallest damn screens they use in their vehicles with giant thick bezels that make them even smaller looking!) But the interior wasn't all bad, I did like the design and feel of the soft touch; I'd say it's a good Rav4 competitor in that respect and the cargo space in the passenger seat is an ingenious use of space (does the seat pad float too?
Honestly even trying to shoehorn this crap into the same category as the 4Runner is a joke, it truly is 100% a Rav4 competitor if anything.
A Lattitude edition doesn't have the same suspension, interior or exterior as a Trailhawk. The infotainment system is not the same either. The Trailhawk that was tested has the 8.4AN which is much better than Entune Premium. Not to mention you drove the 2.4 Liter which is underpowered.
You drove the equivalent of the most basic 4Runner that could be ordered.
The shootout was between a TRDP and a fully loaded Cherokee Trailhawk with the 3.2 V6.
You would need to drive the TH for a few miles to appreciate it, or I suppose you may dislike it even more.
I can understand, depending on the model you drove (some start at $23k) why you feel the RAV4 may be a good comparison against the Cherokee Latitude with 2.4 Liter.
IMO the basic 4Runner isn't anything to write home about either. Drop several thousand dollars and it starts to get pretty good.
Last edited:
BlackWorksInc
New member
[MENTION=114439]Curly Jefferson[/MENTION]
Fair enough on the trim level difference, but the platform itself isn't much changed from the Trailhawk in general so I can get a good ide about its siblings from this one.
The Cherokee is far more cramped than the 4Runner; in size alone it feels like Rav4 or a slightly smaller Highlander more than anything else. Suspension was a bit soft, but I didn't expect much, I am sure the Trailhawk is much tighter (about on par with the squishy SR5 suspension, so a wash really.) Like I said the transmission did not impress at all (I was more interested in key features that were lauded/different than the 4Runner's) and it feels like the extra gears do little to nothing of merit (again I saw little to no RPM difference in 9-5 when manually downshifting from 9 to 1 to engine brake down a 30% grade.) Maybe the V6 is different on the acceleration, But I doubt they changed the gearing between the V6 & I4 versions if their running the same 9spd. But honestly I don't see how this vehicle is supposed to even compete with a base model 4Runner, its just not in the same weight class so to speak; even with its porky selection of gizmos.
The interior materials and construction is on par with everything else Chrysler or anyone else makes for that matter (the fact that the headliner was peeling and not properly tucked where some panels met, as well as one or two panel misfits was also on par with their quality as far as I've seen.) It wasn't overly impressive, but not overly disappointed (again I didn't feel the 4Runner was bad to begin with either, so both interiors didn't exactly excite or disappoint me.) Though some of the trays and such in the Latitude felt more like office depot trays in design than fitting for any automobile (the Trailhawk eliminates these very tacky trays for the buttons for its 4WD set-up.) The infotainment system was lacking not just in screen size but functionality, I've seen plenty of Chrysler infotainment units from their standard micro screens (seriously, even Toyota uses a full size screen for their cheapy Entunes, nothing is more off-putting than seeing this barely usable screen serve as an "infotainment" unit on even the cheapest models of Chrysler products) to their "luxury" loaded ones; needless to say I wasn't entirely impressed. In typical Chrysler fashion the HVAC controls are half controlled by the knobs and half controlled by the pathetic excuse of an infotainment system (something the Prius does and I despise, its a stupid clunky system), not only do I have to enter a sub menu to select vent mode, but then I actually have to press "DONE" to confirm (what is this a windows installation prompt!?) They need to pick either physical controls or software controls, trying to split it between the two is just a pain in the ass and clunky (unfortunately a LOT of brands do this now...) Their more techno-riddled units aren't much better, Toyota's Entune system isn't laid out that great either, but at least I am not selecting a handful of screens/buttons on the infotainment unit while fiddling with knobs to get some damn air conditioning blowing in my face. The Trailhawk has the same set-up, with just the fancier of the systems, so points against it for clunky interfacing there as well as with some other systems. I will say that it wasn't uncomfortable to sit in though (surprisingly comfortable actually), which is a plus; the Latitude had manual seats (which I am pretty happy with in many vehicles vs. electric units) that were fairly god looking and comfortable so no points against it for that.
I will give it a very large red mark for the electronic parking brake through, from what I have dealt with on the European models those things are a neat trick; but extremely expensive to fix when (not if) they do get out of kilter (again, more electronic crap that will fail, something that is a common theme with Chrysler.) The fact the passenger seat tilts up for storage was actually pretty cool I have to admit, I have to give them credit for that (which I am often loathe to do in regards to Chry-Crap on anything.) The bottom of the windshield with the Jeep on a mountain was a cute touch also (I almost mistook it for a defect, but I actually smiled when I saw that) I almost wish Toyota would do something like that on the 4Runner.
Mechanically the Jeep wasn't all that impressive when I got it on the lift; I quickly saw some weak points and areas in the unibody that would easily sustain damage and be worrisome with extended off-road abuse. I barely even need to really look the frame over to know it just won't survive like a body on frame SUV (doesn't even matter if its a 4Runner, Bronco, or Samurai), it just comes down to simple physics on that. I do want to get my hands on the V6 to see how it feels, but honestly everything I see about the Cherokee just screams "Rav4 one-upper" to me, as a Rav4 competitor it really out-classes it a bit and even might give the new Toyota Pacifica... I mean Highlander a bit of a sweat; but the 4Runner? Maybe if you're a road-queen, it just isn't rugged looking, feeling, or reliable (though the Trailhawk does try to put a good fight in that direction, its just hampered by severe engineering hurdles in its Unibody, weak transmission, and very poor design layout for an off-roader.)
Bottom line, I can see the merits of the vehicle and hell I can see why some people might gravitate to it vs. say a Highlander or Rav4... but even the TrailHawk with its very neat 4WD theme just doesn't belong in the same class as the 4Runner. Its just not a comparable vehicle in that respect.
Fair enough on the trim level difference, but the platform itself isn't much changed from the Trailhawk in general so I can get a good ide about its siblings from this one.
The Cherokee is far more cramped than the 4Runner; in size alone it feels like Rav4 or a slightly smaller Highlander more than anything else. Suspension was a bit soft, but I didn't expect much, I am sure the Trailhawk is much tighter (about on par with the squishy SR5 suspension, so a wash really.) Like I said the transmission did not impress at all (I was more interested in key features that were lauded/different than the 4Runner's) and it feels like the extra gears do little to nothing of merit (again I saw little to no RPM difference in 9-5 when manually downshifting from 9 to 1 to engine brake down a 30% grade.) Maybe the V6 is different on the acceleration, But I doubt they changed the gearing between the V6 & I4 versions if their running the same 9spd. But honestly I don't see how this vehicle is supposed to even compete with a base model 4Runner, its just not in the same weight class so to speak; even with its porky selection of gizmos.
The interior materials and construction is on par with everything else Chrysler or anyone else makes for that matter (the fact that the headliner was peeling and not properly tucked where some panels met, as well as one or two panel misfits was also on par with their quality as far as I've seen.) It wasn't overly impressive, but not overly disappointed (again I didn't feel the 4Runner was bad to begin with either, so both interiors didn't exactly excite or disappoint me.) Though some of the trays and such in the Latitude felt more like office depot trays in design than fitting for any automobile (the Trailhawk eliminates these very tacky trays for the buttons for its 4WD set-up.) The infotainment system was lacking not just in screen size but functionality, I've seen plenty of Chrysler infotainment units from their standard micro screens (seriously, even Toyota uses a full size screen for their cheapy Entunes, nothing is more off-putting than seeing this barely usable screen serve as an "infotainment" unit on even the cheapest models of Chrysler products) to their "luxury" loaded ones; needless to say I wasn't entirely impressed. In typical Chrysler fashion the HVAC controls are half controlled by the knobs and half controlled by the pathetic excuse of an infotainment system (something the Prius does and I despise, its a stupid clunky system), not only do I have to enter a sub menu to select vent mode, but then I actually have to press "DONE" to confirm (what is this a windows installation prompt!?) They need to pick either physical controls or software controls, trying to split it between the two is just a pain in the ass and clunky (unfortunately a LOT of brands do this now...) Their more techno-riddled units aren't much better, Toyota's Entune system isn't laid out that great either, but at least I am not selecting a handful of screens/buttons on the infotainment unit while fiddling with knobs to get some damn air conditioning blowing in my face. The Trailhawk has the same set-up, with just the fancier of the systems, so points against it for clunky interfacing there as well as with some other systems. I will say that it wasn't uncomfortable to sit in though (surprisingly comfortable actually), which is a plus; the Latitude had manual seats (which I am pretty happy with in many vehicles vs. electric units) that were fairly god looking and comfortable so no points against it for that.
I will give it a very large red mark for the electronic parking brake through, from what I have dealt with on the European models those things are a neat trick; but extremely expensive to fix when (not if) they do get out of kilter (again, more electronic crap that will fail, something that is a common theme with Chrysler.) The fact the passenger seat tilts up for storage was actually pretty cool I have to admit, I have to give them credit for that (which I am often loathe to do in regards to Chry-Crap on anything.) The bottom of the windshield with the Jeep on a mountain was a cute touch also (I almost mistook it for a defect, but I actually smiled when I saw that) I almost wish Toyota would do something like that on the 4Runner.
Mechanically the Jeep wasn't all that impressive when I got it on the lift; I quickly saw some weak points and areas in the unibody that would easily sustain damage and be worrisome with extended off-road abuse. I barely even need to really look the frame over to know it just won't survive like a body on frame SUV (doesn't even matter if its a 4Runner, Bronco, or Samurai), it just comes down to simple physics on that. I do want to get my hands on the V6 to see how it feels, but honestly everything I see about the Cherokee just screams "Rav4 one-upper" to me, as a Rav4 competitor it really out-classes it a bit and even might give the new Toyota Pacifica... I mean Highlander a bit of a sweat; but the 4Runner? Maybe if you're a road-queen, it just isn't rugged looking, feeling, or reliable (though the Trailhawk does try to put a good fight in that direction, its just hampered by severe engineering hurdles in its Unibody, weak transmission, and very poor design layout for an off-roader.)
Bottom line, I can see the merits of the vehicle and hell I can see why some people might gravitate to it vs. say a Highlander or Rav4... but even the TrailHawk with its very neat 4WD theme just doesn't belong in the same class as the 4Runner. Its just not a comparable vehicle in that respect.
FrontRange4Runner
New member
4 out of the 5 judges pick the 4Runner and it takes 2nd. Does the other guy own the mag? How the hell does that happen...... Then again, maby they should have thrown in a Cyan if interior and on road performance are so important in a off road shoot out.
"The Porsche broke down, has no transfer case and the 20 inch wheels are less than ideal for off road, however a hot chick waved to us while we were driving it, so it's a clear winner here..."
"The Porsche broke down, has no transfer case and the 20 inch wheels are less than ideal for off road, however a hot chick waved to us while we were driving it, so it's a clear winner here..."
STX4Runner
New member
I hate this too. my wife and I rented a Ford Edge last year. Really nice car, but to do ANYTHING (radio, HVAC, etc.) short of accelerating, braking, steering and basic driving functions you had to use the touchscreen. I like being able to not take my eyes off the road and change the HVAC settings in the 4Runner with the big knobs the recent 4x4 of the year testers lambasted. I don't understand how it's illegal a lot of places for me to talk on my cellphone while driving unless its hands free, but no one has problems with car makers basically putting iPads in the dashboard that I have to navigate 6 menus deep in to to change the AC settings.
Last edited:
4Runner v Jeep
I recently bought a 2015 4Runner Trail, and after having owned several off-road 4wd vehicles over the last 40+ years, and having test driven several before deciding on the '15 Trail, I selected the Trail because of multiple factors. I owned a Cherokee for several years and it was ok on and off road, but frankly it was a piece of s***, and seemed to always have something wrong. I wound up in the decision process between the Trail and an Explorer, and besides being less expensive, the 4Runner is simply a better vehicle with better value. I test drove them both on and off road, so I believe I made a fair comparison.
The Explorer had a couple of features better than the Trail (turning radius and nicer interior), but overall the T4R was more suitable to my driving - stock, off the showroom floor. I may do some after market stuff, but want to drive it for a while before deciding which mods. The magazine review comparing the Jeep and the 4Runner was clearly driven by advertising revenue. Toyota apparently doesn't spend much on advertising in enthusiast mags because they have good enough sales without spending big advert bucks. Jeep has to because they make products which simply are not as well-designed or as well built as the competition. For an all-round on and off-road vehicle, the Wrangler isn't even as good as the 4Runner. I have enough friends who drive Wranglers that I know they also have more QC problems than Toyotas. I have owned three other non-4wd Toyotas, and had very few issues with any of them.
My 2 cents worth.
I recently bought a 2015 4Runner Trail, and after having owned several off-road 4wd vehicles over the last 40+ years, and having test driven several before deciding on the '15 Trail, I selected the Trail because of multiple factors. I owned a Cherokee for several years and it was ok on and off road, but frankly it was a piece of s***, and seemed to always have something wrong. I wound up in the decision process between the Trail and an Explorer, and besides being less expensive, the 4Runner is simply a better vehicle with better value. I test drove them both on and off road, so I believe I made a fair comparison.
The Explorer had a couple of features better than the Trail (turning radius and nicer interior), but overall the T4R was more suitable to my driving - stock, off the showroom floor. I may do some after market stuff, but want to drive it for a while before deciding which mods. The magazine review comparing the Jeep and the 4Runner was clearly driven by advertising revenue. Toyota apparently doesn't spend much on advertising in enthusiast mags because they have good enough sales without spending big advert bucks. Jeep has to because they make products which simply are not as well-designed or as well built as the competition. For an all-round on and off-road vehicle, the Wrangler isn't even as good as the 4Runner. I have enough friends who drive Wranglers that I know they also have more QC problems than Toyotas. I have owned three other non-4wd Toyotas, and had very few issues with any of them.
My 2 cents worth.
gundad
New member
From a KL owner
I wIll miss the huge uconnect screen and super comfortable seat from my cherokee kl. I wont miss the 50 days in shop with transmission issues at a dealer overrun by jeeps with tranny issues. I like the feeling of my 4runner trail much more and the cargo space is awesome. Offroad I would much rather be my trail than the kl.
I wIll miss the huge uconnect screen and super comfortable seat from my cherokee kl. I wont miss the 50 days in shop with transmission issues at a dealer overrun by jeeps with tranny issues. I like the feeling of my 4runner trail much more and the cargo space is awesome. Offroad I would much rather be my trail than the kl.
Orc
New member
The SR5 has about everything else that any other T4R has except the limited model. If you want basic go look at a stripped down F-150
Dirty Brigade
New member
Yea, it seemed pretty obvious that the 4runner was the best choice. Someone was trying to boost some Jeep sales it sounds like. Than again, Im a little biased. Ha.
Jetboy
New member
They basically do. It's called a GX460. I drove them back to back. The acceleration times are ~ the same. Feel pretty similar. I'd bet with the 6spd auto the 4runner would actually be a bit quicker to 60.
Curly Jefferson
New member
Then let's get 5.7 as an option. I don't think we would take much of a mileage hit. My 14' Crewmax gets about 13.7 mpg no matter what, the 4 Runner isn't much better.
Jetboy
New member
The problem with comparing the TH and 4runner engines - like most engine comparisons - is that not many people really understand the physics of motion and the result is that we get very poor information about engines. Peak horsepower is at least kinda useful, peak torque is almost entirely meaningless without more information. I can produce 1000 ft lbs of torque by hand. I cannot accelerate a 4500lb suv very quickly.
What really matters when calculating how fast you can accelerate a mass is the integral of the hp curve in the rpm range that you are operating. Short stroke engines with sky high rpms can produce a lot of peak horsepower, but have a tendency to also be very peaky in deliver - such that the average output within the rpm range of each gear may actually be lower than another engine with lower peak hp.
And what really matters for most of us is hp at around 2500rpms. We would be much better served by auto manufacturers if we got rid of the torque number and instead had hp ratings at 2,000 3,000, and 4000rpms. Or even something like the average hp between 2,000 and 3,500rpms. Torque is a very rough approximation of this only in the sense that they tend to correlate: ie. more torque tends to have a strong correlation with power output between 2 and 4k rpms.
As it applies to these vehicles - I really don't know which has better power output at the lower rpm range. My guess it the 1GR is more powerful. And longer stroke engines tend to have flatter hp curves, so my guess is the 1gr has a wider range of rpms in which it can produce more power. The result is that it needs less gears where the short stroke engine of the TH can use more gears because it's effective rpm range is narrow.
My final thought was - where was the Subaru Outback? The new JC is very clearly an Outback competitor. If you see two side by side the JC is nearly identical in shape and proportions. I think it would be a much more direct competition between two crossovers. The core issue is really that Jeep and Toyota models don't line up well. The 4runner is about half way between a wrangler and a GC. The highlander is closer to a GC than the 4runner, but not quite directly comparable. The rav 4 is much closer to the TH, but again not exactly. So there isn't much direct competition.
What really matters when calculating how fast you can accelerate a mass is the integral of the hp curve in the rpm range that you are operating. Short stroke engines with sky high rpms can produce a lot of peak horsepower, but have a tendency to also be very peaky in deliver - such that the average output within the rpm range of each gear may actually be lower than another engine with lower peak hp.
And what really matters for most of us is hp at around 2500rpms. We would be much better served by auto manufacturers if we got rid of the torque number and instead had hp ratings at 2,000 3,000, and 4000rpms. Or even something like the average hp between 2,000 and 3,500rpms. Torque is a very rough approximation of this only in the sense that they tend to correlate: ie. more torque tends to have a strong correlation with power output between 2 and 4k rpms.
As it applies to these vehicles - I really don't know which has better power output at the lower rpm range. My guess it the 1GR is more powerful. And longer stroke engines tend to have flatter hp curves, so my guess is the 1gr has a wider range of rpms in which it can produce more power. The result is that it needs less gears where the short stroke engine of the TH can use more gears because it's effective rpm range is narrow.
My final thought was - where was the Subaru Outback? The new JC is very clearly an Outback competitor. If you see two side by side the JC is nearly identical in shape and proportions. I think it would be a much more direct competition between two crossovers. The core issue is really that Jeep and Toyota models don't line up well. The 4runner is about half way between a wrangler and a GC. The highlander is closer to a GC than the 4runner, but not quite directly comparable. The rav 4 is much closer to the TH, but again not exactly. So there isn't much direct competition.
Curly Jefferson
New member
If anything the 4Runner is more in line with the Grand Cherokee as they are they are the only two built on truck frames and are similar in size. The Cherokee is more of a compact SUV while the 4Runner is more in line with a Midsize SUV.
The entry level Cherokees with Active Drive 1 may be more of an Outback competitor but it would probably be closer to the Subaru Forester in size.
Personally, I would rather have a Limited Outback than a Cherokee Latitude but thats just me.
