Timely review, 4Runner Trail v. Jeep GC

[RonMAIDEN]

In general,

IMHO, I find the review kind of annoying from the fact that it is geared towards a "general public" (which i guess is the point). What gets me is that they insist on attributing lower scores on features that make the car more rugged and less "car like". Well, I always ask myself..what the hell is the point in buying an off-road capable vehicle if you want a car.
In other words if you want a car...just go get yourself a souped up accord or a entry level beamer or audi and be done with it (assuming the price range in hand).

I agree but the reality is people buy SUVs and even the off road capable ones will rarely or likely never realize their capability and remember this review was in a general car buying person's magazine but in an off road magazine you will see a proper review and we'll see who come out on top when used properly in our opinions. People want the rugged look but still want the ride of a car and car companies need to find that balance and sometimes you lose buyers (no V8 in the 5th gen) but gain others. (buyers who might not like the FJ but want a capable Toyota)

 

[lowrange44]

The 4Runner tested was a Trail with NAV, so it must have KDSS.

 

[mikeync]

OK here is what I don't get.

If the review was for the general public more then why wasn't the Limited put against the GC? It makes no sense. I don't do much off-roading so we got the limited.

In the summary:

GC -- Short of crossing obstacles where you'd need a locking rear diff

T4R -- A Limited brings more lux, but you can't get all the 4WD gizmos.

Kind of funny to point to the "limitation" in the GC and the that is a plus for the T4R but the winner is announced because of the opposite

That kind of makes the test stink a bit -- if they were going to award based on what the general public wants then they should have taken an SR5 / Limited and compared that to a GC......

 

[mikeync]

I agree but the reality is people buy SUVs and even the off road capable ones will rarely or likely never realize their capability and remember this review was in a general car buying person's magazine but in an off road magazine you will see a proper review and we'll see who come out on top when used properly in our opinions. People want the rugged look but still want the ride of a car and car companies need to find that balance and sometimes you lose buyers (no V8 in the 5th gen) but gain others. (buyers who might not like the FJ but want a capable Toyota)

General public doesn't buy the Trail Edition...... they buy SR5 or Limited

 

[SeattleMike]

If they were going to award based on what the general public wants, they would wait to see which 2011 version sells more and review those models head to head.

The JGC looks like a great vehicle for people who tow, occasionally go off the pavement, and want both comfort and luxury. It seems like a very capable vehicle, which should be a given coming from Jeep.

Do I think it is better than a T4R TE? The subjective answer is "no". I could have waited if I wanted, but I had doubts that Jeep will be around in 20 years (see Hummer) but I have no doubts about Toyota being around in 20 years. I hope the GC is a huge success for Jeep. But I don't think it is better because I don't like leather interiors, I think chrome accents are a PITA to keep shiny and clean, and the point of buying an off-road capable vehicle is for it's off-road capabilities, not it's road manners.

Motor Trend claims that the GC is more versatile, but their bias is from a passenger vehicle perspective, and from that view they are correct; for a luxury passenger car the Jeep Grand Cherokee is a very versatile vehicle. But if your bias is from an off-road perspective, the GC is not as versatile as the 4Runner which was designed to for a different kind of buyer. And really, here is where my problem is with this review: They put the JGC up against a LR4 in round one, they should have put it up against a Land Cruiser in round two, not the 4Runner. What MT did is compare an apple to an orange, and claim one was better than the other based on the amount of juice. It's like putting a LC up against the Jeep Rubicon Unlimited and declaring a winner based on lack of a cup holders.

 

[Physgirl]

What 3 engines are you guys referring to? The 4.7L is dead for 2011, we have one in our Dakota, not bad engine by any means but having 2 V8's in the lineup didn't make sense apparently. A diesel is only available outside of the US. Only 2 engines available in the GC for 2011.

A limited 4x4 4Runner is still $5k cheaper than the GC before you option it out.

 

[453030]

Well I picked up my new loaded Trail last night with 3 miles. I am at about 100 now. I've only started to set up a few things. It's awesome. On the way home my mom asked me to stop by to see it. Took her through her neighborhood and on the way back figured I better give 4WD a quick test. Lever slides so easily into 4 (without any grinding or difficulty) and I traverse a small but steep ravine near her house. Lightly scraped the lower front fascia and left with some earth gobs stuck to the hitch. Felt like a mule climbing out. I effin' love my new Trail. I wanted a truck and bought one. And that's how I'll be rolling every day, not just on weekends :guitar3:

 

[harper7]

Why they did'nt compare the 4runner Limited against the GC Limited if as they say "most people would rather have a more versatile coach that they can enjoy driving every day, knowing that, if there's a camping vacation in the future, they can still pull it off".

The most likely reason "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"
Just take a look around the article and it's almost all Jeep ads.

Another good comparison apple to apple comparison would be the fully loaded GC against the Lexus GX460 in about the same price range.
Not one mention of predicted reliabilty or resale value either!huh!Time WILL tell!

Well I picked up my new loaded Trail last night with 3 miles. I am at about 100 now. I've only started to set up a few things. It's awesome. On the way home my mom asked me to stop by to see it. Took her through her neighborhood and on the way back figured I better give 4WD a quick test. Lever slides so easily into 4 (without any grinding or difficulty) and I traverse a small but steep ravine near her house. Lightly scraped the lower front fascia and left with some earth gobs stuck to the hitch. Felt like a mule climbing out. I effin' love my new Trail. I wanted a truck and bought one. And that's how I'll be rolling every day, not just on weekends :guitar3:

Congrats , arty: But without pics in the owners pic thread........it didn't happen! You could be some new Jeep GC owner with buyers remorse dreaming you had a TE for all we know.:roadkill: JK

Where are you at and what color ?We want to see pics..... especially of the earth gobs stuck to it. Gotta love it,less then 100 miles and already scraped the front and rear .What mods are planned?Sounds like your going to have some fun in it for sure.Ride on!:hatsoff:

 

[mgrande]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that it has an independent rear suspension. I mean really???? You cant even compare the two.Take it on the same rubicon path the TE took and see how far it gets.

 

[Jed]

The most likely reason "You don't bite the hand that feeds you"
Just take a look around the article and it's almost all Jeep ads.

:

Hahahahahaha....I've seen people say the same thing again and again. Why does BMW win so many comparo tests? Well, because they advertise in the magazine. LOL....all car companies advertise in car magazines, not just the ones that win. Give the magazine testers some credit--they test cars against a set of predetermined criteria, not against advertising dollars. To suggest otherwise is a very slippery slope.

 

[Jed]

...remember this review was in a general car buying person's magazine but in an off road magazine you will see a proper review and we'll see who come out on top when used properly in our opinions.

Yeah, I agree. If this test was in 4wd & Offroad magazine, they would have focused much more on the off-road factor vs. the on-road factor. In that case, the 4Runner would have been favored simply because it was a Trail Edition versus a Limited Grand Cherokee with the 20" wheel option and no air suspension.

 

[sandcrawler]

Hahahahahaha....I've seen people say the same thing again and again. Why does BMW win so many comparo tests? Well, because they advertise in the magazine. LOL....all car companies advertise in car magazines, not just the ones that win. Give the magazine testers some credit--they test cars against a set of predetermined criteria, not against advertising dollars. To suggest otherwise is a very slippery slope.

sorry, but having worked in print and publishing for ~20 years, i have to say that advertising $$ does influence editorial. is the publication (like nearly all magazines) ad-supported? well, then advertisers hold sway. the only differences are in the degree to which they do but to think otherwise is just naive.

sure, the testers will do their jobs according to a predetermined set of criteria, but believe me, when the finished piece —and its conclusions— rise to the level of the editorial director... well, let's just euphemistically say that "business decisions" come into play.

i agree with what's been noted above that pitting a Trail vs. a GC Limited (rolling on 20's) is a pretty sketchy basis for comparison to begin with, and i'm certainly not saying the results were rigged (how would any of us know?), but the entire publishing industry is in an absolutely grim state of affairs right now and quite literally gasping for survival. with the future of the business hanging in the balance, believe me, advertisers have power — more than ever before.

 

[453030]

Congrats , arty: But without pics in the owners pic thread........it didn't happen! You could be some new Jeep GC owner with buyers remorse dreaming you had a TE for all we know.:roadkill: JK

Where are you at and what color ?We want to see pics..... especially of the earth gobs stuck to it. Gotta love it,less then 100 miles and already scraped the front and rear .What mods are planned?Sounds like your going to have some fun in it for sure.Ride on!:hatsoff:

LOL, great reply Bro. I promise to add pictures soon. It is Mag Grey and she makes berth in Colorado. Nav and KDSS, waited 14 weeks from the time I ordered. I like to honor the "break-in" period for a few hundred miles, but figured a minute of 4WD was a nice test. Poor mom almost passed out from anxiety.

I have the El Grande and hope to get it in this weekend. Added the smoke bug deflector last night, W-Digi Liners, Lloyd's rear cargo mat, and Toyota tonneau cover. Tint as soon as I can get to the shop, BFGs or DuraTracs (need to look at these in person) in a few weeks. Opted for the Shrockworks sliders (met with my custom welder but after some analysis I really like the look and easy bolt-on install of the SW). I made sure to mention to Jim you helped out. I have also designed a wicked custom grill guard for the front, but am not sure I want to add the weight. I plan to leave the stock suspension alone for a while, although maybe would consider a small lift and that guard down the road.

Thanks for the kind words and all the informative posts. You make modding easier for the rest of us :drummer:

 

[Jed]

sorry, but having worked in print and publishing for ~20 years, i have to say that advertising $$ does influence editorial. is the publication (like nearly all magazines) ad-supported? well, then advertisers hold sway. the only differences are in the degree to which they do but to think otherwise is just naive.

sure, the testers will do their jobs according to a predetermined set of criteria, but believe me, when the finished piece —and its conclusions— rise to the level of the editorial director... well, let's just euphemistically say that "business decisions" come into play.

i agree with what's been noted above that pitting a Trail vs. a GC Limited (rolling on 20's) is a pretty sketchy basis for comparison to begin with, and i'm certainly not saying the results were rigged (how would any of us know?), but the entire publishing industry is in an absolutely grim state of affairs right now and quite literally gasping for survival. with the future of the business hanging in the balance, believe me, advertisers have power — more than ever before.

Most people don't believe what you're saying. Because if they did, then ANY magazine would quickly lose any credibility and certainly its reputation. I believe the people who do the testing are unbiased and I certainly don't believe that any editorial director would alter or sway test results based upon advertising dollars. I think that entire concept is a myth perpetuated by people looking for "excuses" as to why their vehicle of choice didn't win a comparison test.

If you truly believed what you say, why even bother reading the test? It would be 100% pointless to even waste your time.

 

[LongBallLarry]

Most people don't believe what you're saying. Because if they did, then ANY magazine would quickly lose any credibility and certainly its reputation. I believe the people who do the testing are unbiased and I certainly don't believe that any editorial director would alter or sway test results based upon advertising dollars. I think that entire concept is a myth perpetuated by people looking for "excuses" as to why their vehicle of choice didn't win a comparison test.

If you truly believed what you say, why even bother reading the test? It would be 100% pointless to even waste your time.

I have seen marketers pull their advertising because of bad reviews. Yes, even car companies. You would be amazed at the amount of "incentives" certain car companies give for good reviews. Many times a review is a paid advertisement but is not disclosed. Read everything with a grain of salt.

 

[Jed]

I have seen marketers pull their advertising because of bad reviews. Yes, even car companies. You would be amazed at the amount of "incentives" certain car companies give for good reviews. Many times a review is a paid advertisement but is not disclosed. Read everything with a grain of salt.

If it is an advertisement, I believe it is a requirement by law to put the word "advertisement" at the top of each page. I've seen that in many car mags.

I still don't buy the whole concept of a car company basically "buying" a good review. It just doesn't make any sense. Any time a comparison test is done, there has to be one winner and at least one loser. If the loser(s) pull their advertising because of bad reviews, then very few companies would advertise in the magazine (everybody gets a bad review eventually) and the magazine would die.

Do you have any specific examples where a car company pulled their advertising after a poor review was written about one of its vehicles? I'd love to hear about it if you do.....it would be very interesting.

 

[LongBallLarry]

If it is an advertisement, I believe it is a requirement by law to put the word "advertisement" at the top of each page. I've seen that in many car mags.

I still don't buy the whole concept of a car company basically "buying" a good review. It just doesn't make any sense. Any time a comparison test is done, there has to be one winner and at least one loser. If the loser(s) pull their advertising because of bad reviews, then very few companies would advertise in the magazine (everybody gets a bad review eventually) and the magazine would die.

Do you have any specific examples where a car company pulled their advertising after a poor review was written about one of its vehicles? I'd love to hear about it if you do.....it would be very interesting.

Do a search for GM pulling advertising from LA Times.

BMW is an amazing vehicle. And they offer amazing perks to their "best friends".

The "Advertisement" notification has many loopholes and is stretched. It is a cut-throat world out there.

In all, I read the reviews and make my own judgment about how biased or influenced the editorial might be. This is true for all types of products.

 

[SeattleMike]

Most people don't believe what you're saying. Because if they did, then ANY magazine would quickly lose any credibility and certainly its reputation. I believe the people who do the testing are unbiased and I certainly don't believe that any editorial director would alter or sway test results based upon advertising dollars. I think that entire concept is a myth perpetuated by people looking for "excuses" as to why their vehicle of choice didn't win a comparison test.

If you truly believed what you say, why even bother reading the test? It would be 100% pointless to even waste your time.

Most people don't believe? Where are you getting your statistics? Do you have anything more than anecdotes?

You can't claim a fact just because you think it is fact, you have to provide proof. And what you believe is equally irrelevant when discussing facts. You can't prove what you believe any more so than you can disprove what others believe without.the.facts.

However, one can make observations and share them with others. Your observation is that auto magazines are unbiased and even handed and not subject to the influence of their advertisers. If that is so, there should be ample evidence of these magazine's reviews that are critical of the manufacturer, even outright recommendations that people avoid buying certain cars at all costs for any variety of reasons. Care to share some evidence of such behavior from something other than Consumer Reports?

 

[LongBallLarry]

JD Power, Consumer Reports, Motor Trend COTY are all examples of stick-ups just without the gun. The stuff you see behind the curtain can make you miserably jaded if you don't take a step back.

 

[Jed]

Most people don't believe? Where are you getting your statistics? Do you have anything more than anecdotes?

You can't claim a fact just because you think it is fact, you have to provide proof. And what you believe is equally irrelevant when discussing facts. You can't prove what you believe any more so than you can disprove what others believe without.the.facts.

However, one can make observations and share them with others. Your observation is that auto magazines are unbiased and even handed and not subject to the influence of their advertisers. If that is so, there should be ample evidence of these magazine's reviews that are critical of the manufacturer, even outright recommendations that people avoid buying certain cars at all costs for any variety of reasons. Care to share some evidence of such behavior from something other than Consumer Reports?

Ease up, big boy. I never said I was stating facts. I never said anything about statistics. I'm just using common sense. If MOST people believed magazine testers were biased and that they awarded wins based upon advertising dollars, then not many people would buy the magazine. If people aren't buying the magazine, it will fail. So common sense prevails here when I say that most people believe that the test results are unbiased. If you had no faith in the testers or their test results, would you bother even reading the article? I certainly wouldn't....