2014+ Jeep Cherokee Forums banner

Car and Driver take on the 2016 Cherokee

7K views 16 replies 15 participants last post by  ctprelude  
#1 ·
After doing comprehensive reviews of both the Limited and TH in the last two years, C&D did a quick take of the 2016 Cherokee. I agree with most of their comments (even though I don't have ESS :)), and especially on the final verdict:

Verdict: Leave it to Jeep to create a compact crossover that charts its own rugged course in a sea of bland boxes.

What We Like: The Cherokee imparts a feeling of solidity on the road, with secure handling and a firm, controlled ride. When equipped with the optional 3.2-liter V-6 engine, it’s fairly quick and sporty-feeling considering its mass—the last Cherokee V-6 we tested weighed in at 4382 pounds, nearly 1000 pounds heavier than a four-cylinder Honda CR-V. Even the Trailhawk model, with its knobby off-road tires, has decent road manners thanks to well-weighted steering and good body control. The interior looks and feels similar to that of the more expensive Grand Cherokee, and the Uconnect touchscreen, which controls navigation, audio, and climate functions, is easy and intuitive to use.
Image


What We Don’t Like: Jeep needs room to cram beefy four-wheel-drive hardware into the Cherokee’s compact-car architecture, so the interior packaging suffers even on models that lack those goodies. Rear-seat room and cargo space don’t measure up to competitors like the Honda CR-V and the Toyota RAV4, and the high lift-over height can make it a challenge to load large or heavy items into the cargo area. The base 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine is best avoided, as it’s unrefined and struggles against the Cherokee’s substantial mass. The nine-speed automatic transmission that is standard on all models doesn’t help: it’s sometimes slow to kick down when the driver requests more oomph. The V-6’s power and torque help compensate for the gearbox’s occasional confusion, but the engine upgrade makes for a thirsty Cherokee. Our most recent tests of V-6* four-wheel-drive Cherokee models netted 18 and 20 mpg combined, while an all-wheel-drive four-cylinder CR-V averaged 25 mpg in our care.
Image



http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-jeep-cherokee-review
 
#2 ·
Reading the parts you posted, I agree with much of their opinion. But I have yet to own a perfect vehicle aside from the closest, my 2011 Frontier SV. I would only have changed two things. Drop some of the hard plastic inside, and add more lumbar support. Well, headlights too, but every truck seems to have crappy lighting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wmasters
#5 ·
Every vehicle is a compromise of functions to me.
Still the best 4WD system out there in my opinion.
I love the fact that it defaults to FWD and will use 4WD as needed.
Or be set to use 4WD all the time.
That alone helps mpg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke2015
#6 ·
I agree with most of this also. They must have a heavy foot though - I have the V-6 with ADII and live in the mountains in Colorado and average 25 MPG, which is what they quote with the I-4.
 
#7 ·
Yeah, I thought their mpg was low too. Don't pay much attention to it though because powertrains, people's driving styles, and environmental conditions are different. I got 28 mpg combined on a tank once while trying to conserve. Most of the time a tank will average 24-25. In the winter I've got as low as 19 on a tank. I can get over 30 mpg on a tank if it's all fairly flat interstate at 65 mph.
 
#8 ·
There doesn't seem to be a reason to compare my TH to any Toyota product since Toyota doesn't stand behind their vehicles.
My wife bought a new 2009 Corolla XRS with the deluxe alloy wheels. After 3 years, the finish on the wheels started peeling off and all the dealer would offer was to install a new set, at full price.
That was the last Toyota product we will ever buy.
 
#9 ·
For C&D that's pretty good...seeing they have fallen in love with anything foreign! Out of all my many vehicles, mostly Jeeps I had a 2005 CR-V and couldn't wait to get back too a Jeep, traded it at 23k. Nice little car if that's what ya want and decent mpg, thought I did...nada!!


Traded the CR-V for a '07 loaded Wrangler JKU Sahara loved it, traded that for a '12 loaded JKU Sahara, loved it! Traded that for a '15 loaded TH KL, like it? Thought I'd get decent mpg's...not impressed! Off Road capabilities of the TH very impressive, more than expected! The TH pretty neat overall, unfortunately I want my JKU back!:crying:


C&D still is crap!>:D


Go Jeep!!!
 
#12 ·
Don't know how the managed 20 mpg , I can get 26/27 on a run pretty easily , The KL (TH) is the best all round multi tasking vehicle out there , Nothing comes close , It's a jack of all trades and masters most of them , if not all .
 
#15 ·
That's the best thing I like about the TH. It's does everything very well. I believe it's the best all around vehicle. Most of the haters have never even driven one. They're just pulling stuff out of they're asses, and don't really know what they are talking about.
 
#13 ·
I really don't get all the hate the 2.4l tigershark engine receives.

Coming from a 1.8l turbo hatchback, I find the tigershark more refined in terms of engine sound at high rpm, and totally adequate in terms of power even with AD1.

I have 27,000mi in a year and a half, have taken many long distance road trips, have crossed over the Sierra Nevada mountains back and forth at least 6 times and I have never had problems with the power. Yes, passing on the highway isn't as quick and painless as it was on my turbo hatch, but this is an SUV after all.

On the way to Reno, I pass most vehicles going up the mountain and never struggle maintaining 10mi above the speed limit. Safety limits me before the power of the engine.

It's true that in AUTO, the Cherokee gets sluggish because it wants to up shift as fast as possible, but if you put it in SPORT, it turns into a whole different vehicle: quick and responsive.
 
#14 ·
It's all relative. 30 years ago your Jeep would have been considered fairly quick at the time. Now days if your vehicle can't do a quarter mile in 13 sec or less it's considered slow. I've owned cars that were really slow. 1983 Toyota Tercel with a automatic transmission. Top speed 85, 0-60"around 16 to 20 sec.
The V6 is just as fast as many stock muscle cars of the 60's and 70's and people still complain that's it's slow.
The main thing is if your vehicle meets all your needs, then that all that counts. Ignore all the stupid comments.
 
#16 ·
I would agree with your observations on the 4 cylinder engine. I traded a 2010 Equinox LTZ with the V-6 and I am happy with my Cherokee Limited with the Tigershark. When I bought the Equinox I did buy it so I could tow my toys, but I found the Equinox not a good choice for (my) towing needs. I bought a Quad Cab Dakota with a V-8 that does a much better job. Since I didn't need another vehicle to tow, no complaints so far with the Cherokee and the 4 cylinder engine.
 
#17 ·
MPG varies wildly from vehicle to vehicle. I think the absolute best I've seen on the EVIC is like 24.9 on a trip that was all highway and flat to slight downhill. Doing short city driving mine is around 15mpg. Combined city and highway keeps mine in the 19mpg range.

2015 TH with tow group for reference.