It's really difficult to compare those two - different vehicles, different segments, different engines. If it helps, I can offer a direct comparison between the Audi 3.0 V6, the BMW 2.8i I6 and the Cherokee V6. Subjectively, the BMW inline 6 felt the quickest and most responsive, but I got an average of about 17 mpg in combined driving (lots of city stop 'n' go)! I would rate the 3.2 V6 as #2 and (in combination with the 9 speed) possibly even a joint #1. The Audi V6 felt slower and averaged a measly 16.5 mpg. For the record, I am averaging around 19 mpg in the Cherokee V6.

 

Wife just asked me the other day (she as a Jeep Liberty with V6 3.7 ) what size engine ? , I said smaller than yours but quicker :grin: Im still breaking mine in , But it feels very nippy up to 3500/4000 rpm's , Also the power feels effortless , Could be the nine speed and lower rpm's as well . Come from a 1 ton Dodge , So you can imagine the difference in refinement for me .:laugh:

 

That reminds me... Last weekend we went to dinner with neighbors in our 'new' car. I got on the xway and stepped into it to merge. From the back seat the wife hollers "IS THIS A HEMI?" LOL. They have a Hemi Ram Truck.

 

Compared to the WRX I've been driving for the last 11 years.... the Jeep is a turd.

I quiet, comfortable turd with a nice stereo It's my "grown up" car, to be driven like a grown-up.

The WRX sits in the driveway next to it, still available for playtime, though I'm usually on my motorcycle when I want to play these days.

Also have a Ram 2500 for pulling the 5th wheel and any other heavy lifting.

Different vehicles, different expectations.

 

Compared to the WRX I've been driving for the last 11 years.... the Jeep is a turd.

I quiet, comfortable turd with a nice stereo It's my "grown up" car, to be driven like a grown-up.

I could say the exact same thing and replace WRX with Focus ST. I love my Eco Green Cherokee but it's a "turtle" compared to my other car.

 

I came into the Cherokee from a 5 spd 2L inline 4 turbo Saab. I am pleased with the power of the 3.2 in the Cherokee but I have yet to drive a vehicle with the same linear power band of a Saab 4 cyl turbo. I think the Cherokee has more 'raw power', I just can't direct it as well as the turbo Saab.

 

trailhawk goes pretty good but not nearly as fast as vehicle it replaced.. 2011 kia sorento v6..

 

I traded my 2012 Ford F-150 5.0 V8 non 4x4 in on my Cherokee Latitude non 4x4 V6 and the power seems very similar, I would imagine due to the Cherokee being much lighter. It seems much more powerful than the Dodge Nitro we had with the 3.7 V6 (that thing was a dog). So far the Penstar engine with the 9 speed trans is a pretty good match.

 

The TH is a little faster than my wifes 3.2L V-6 Toyota Solara. Not suprising since it does have about 70 more horses under the hood which more than makes up for the weight difference

It is way faster than the LJ I had previously. And it is faster than my 3500 CTD I had before that.

But it can't touch the Cummins for highway cruising. 6 speed manual and just left it in top gear. Nothing slowed it down. 305 HP and 555 lb. ft. of torque will get you moving and keep you moving no mater what the terrain. Oddly enough, when I was not towing I got in the mid 20's from it on the highway. Couple that with a 27 gallon fuel tank and I could go a LONG way between fillups.

 

It's much faster than the gutless 1.8l I4 in my Caliber

 

The 5 speed is probably better than the CVT we had in ours, it screamed like a virgin on prom night but didn't get out of it's own way.

 

Our V6 TH does OK. It feels heavy and I really have to push hard on the accelerator if I need to merge into traffic. The engine, when pushed, is also noisier than I'd like.

Our previous SUV, a VW Touareg Diesel was much more responsive and agile, even though it was considerably heavier.

Having said that, I really like our TH and if we want to go fast, we have other cars to do that with.

 

Meh.. the V6 power isn't fantastic, but here are my comparisons:

'06 FX45, 4.5L V8 (our trade for the Cherokee), 315hp, 335tq - The FX45 would leave the Cherokee in a cloud of dust off the line... with almost double the torque, it wouldn't be close. Loved punching it while towing my boat in the FX45. But... after 20-30mph, from a roll, the Cherokee would show more respectably but still get beat by our old FX44.

'99 Wrangler, 4.0L V6, lifted, 33's - Off the line it might be close as 1st gear on the Wrangler is pretty low.. but after that the Wrangler is gutless and the Cherokee would be off whistling in the wind while my Wrangler would take 10 seconds to get to 60mph and then never get to 90mph.

'05 Subaru Legacy GT, 250hp, 250tq - The Subaru was much faster (0-60mph in 5.1s) than the Cherokee... no contest.

'06 Shelby GT, 590whp 535tq - Ummmm... my garage queen. Not a fair comparison!

 

Im rather unimpressed with the power of the V6 engine. I feel that it almost drives like a four cyl and has horrible lag time. Came from a Toyota venza with v6 3.6l engine....it has giddy-up!

 

Interesting??




2 weeks ago I had a stoplight ":confrontation" with a Toyota Venza with my '12 JKU Sahara, I gave up at 60, he was car length and a half behind! I think it was my bit of a burn out at the start that surprised him?? :wink:
I think our TH is great but a bit of a poop in power compared our JKU.I actually think the JKU's 5 speed is difference? The JKU is heavier too but...?


Love 'em both, if I wanna do fast I use the FJR 146hp and 670 lbs, that'll do it every time.:smile: not too great "off road"!


Have fun whatever you do!

 

i have gone from a 4 cyl. " world engine" in my patriot to the cherokee with the 4 cyl.

the cherokee feels much more potent in my opinion.
not sure if it's the transmission to thank or the motor or both.

the cvt in the patriot was lame too.

 

Do you have another vehicle(s) you're driving in addition to the Cherokee? Are you surprised at all about the Cherokee's power at the wheels? The reason for the question is I'm driving a pickup with a V8 and initially assumed it would be faster/quicker than the V6 Cherokee. But the Cherokee seems to have more giddyup. Too bad I can't race them for conclusive results. No doubt the Cherokee is faster off the line. Probably because it's 700 pounds lighter and the 9-speed. But it seems like on the highway the Cherokee's got more raw passing power too. Or maybe I'm being fooled by the exhaust system tone. Here are the specs on each vehicle.

2003 Toyota Tundra Pickup 4X4
4.7-liter V-8
245-hp
315 lb-ft torque
4-speed automatic
4725 lbs Curb Weight
13/16 mpg
6,900 lbs Towing Capacity

2015 Jeep Cherokee Limited 4X4 AD2
3.2-Liter V6
271-hp
239 lb-ft torque
9-speed automatic
4,044 lb Curb Weight
21/28 mpg
4,500 lbs Towing Capacity

It's a tough comparison since a pickup is a work vehicle with more torque and towing capacity. Check out the mpg difference!

Being fooled I do not think so.
Its the 9 speed vs the 4 speed.

My last vehicle was a '04 Grand Cherokee V8 with 4spd w/OD.
Other than the the V8 power available to the Grand, I believe the 9 speed makes up for a lot. Even when I have towed that 9 speed keeps everything going smooth and there is not much difference.
Very happy with it.:smile:

 

If you guys/gals want to see some race track numbers, check out jim383 at Jeep Garage --> http://www.jeepgarage.org/f216/cherokee-trailhawk-3-2-1-8-mile-test-results-80770.html#post1121309. He went up against a 4 cylinder about 1500 pounds lighter than his V6 Cherokee. For those not familiar, DA is Density Altitude, RT is Reaction Time, and race wt is Race Weight. Jim383 also did some other tests at the beginning of the thread.

 

I switched from a BMW X3 3.0 diesel 8-speed to the Cherokee TH 9-speed and I have to admit that the 258hp of the BMW are MUCH more power than the 272hp of the Jeep with a far better mileage. BMW seems to be miles ahead in engine engineering.

But I really like my TH.

 

The old adage.. Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races!

That 3.0 diesel in the BMW likely makes way more torque than the gasser in the Jeep. And will do so burning less fuel. Diesel is just plain more efficient.

 

Comparing it to the 3.6L 290 hp V6 in the Grand Cherokee.. the TH feels much better and more responsive. The GC was too much of a boat, you turn left and eventually it turns left. The 271hp V6 gets the power a little better but not much.

Comparing it to the 3.6L 300hp V6 in the Porsche Cayenne.. the Cayenne feels like it has 200hp more than the Jeep, not 29. The transmission blows the Jeep out of the water. Every shift feels like 50 years of automotive precision. It's a joy to shift gears, and the engine sounds exhilarating. Not that a Cayenne and a TH should be compared but that's what I'm comparing it to.

 

Well coming from a 1.8 140hp civic... The 3.2 has gobs of power.>

 

Cherokee has proven much more spirited than my last two vehicles but one was my trade-in a 2008 Patriot 2.4L 5 speed manual 173hp was not in the same league as the 3.2L.My Ford Explorer with the 4.0L was probably closer comparison but it was a turtle compared to the Cherokee & my biggest complaint of the Explorer was its poor mpg I referred to it as my GSP (gas sucking pig).

 

It's not disappointing, it's turbo.

The 2.0 turbo in my Subaru makes more power and torque than the 3.2 as well. But nowhere near as composed while doing it. Every design is a trade off of some sort.

 

My 4 cyl 160 hp Tacoma is downright sluggish compared to the Cherokee when pulling its 3800 lbs of it plus me. I'm still not used to being able to pull out in traffic without waiting for a huge spot.

My Burgman 650 scooter is about the same (effective) power as the Cherokee, 0-60 in 7 sec, and has similar PWR (900 lbs of Burg + me at 55 hp vs. 4300 lbs of TH + me at 271 hp).

My Triumph Thunderbird Sport has more effective power, at around 750 lbs of me + it and 80 hp or so.

 

Our V-6 TH is certainly more powerful and has better acceleration than the 215 hp V-6 in our considerably lighter Mitsu Ourlander., It is many moons ago when we had the turbo PT Cruiser, but that little devil could not have kept up with the TH V-6 either, probably due to turbo lag when you step on it, and the TH's 9 speed tranny.
:wink:

 

I have a 3.3L Grand Caravan and a 5.7L Challenger R/T. I'd say the Cherokee is right between the two, acceleration wise. It's much faster than my wife's 2.4L PT Cruiser, and accelerates with much less noise and vibration than the 2.4.

 

In auto mode, there is some power lag, but still has good pep past that pedal threshold. Once it engages it picks up speed quickly.
In sport mode, it's really pretty awesome. For this type of vehicle, it's quite fast.

Either way, it destroys my previous 2008 Dodge Nitro V6 which was heavier and had a much less powerful engine. That thing was a turtle and your gas just vanished when you tried to push it.

 

My I4 Cherokee is comparable to most other vehicles I have owned due to power to weight ratios being around the same. Just yesterday, I was passing a car when that yahoo decided he wanted to race. He floors his car just as I pull out to go around. I persisted and barely got by in the Cherokee 4 I was driving. I won't discuss what I gestured to that scumbag, but I really wished I had my V6 Cherokee as I probably wouldn't have even noticed him accelerating. That's how much better the V6 is in extreme conditions. So, I would say that the V6 rates as one of the best power to weight ratio vehicles I have had.

 

3.2 Cherokee is much faster than the 2007 Caravan it replaced, especially in merging onto the freeway, about the only place I've ever felt the need to floor it. In that situation with revs up it is a rocket in the 55-75 mph range, less so around town. It is slower over all than my 3.6 Charger (both AWD 2014 models), I suspect, but other aspects of its "feel" resulting from its greater height and different driving position make that difficult to judge.

Over all, I'd say the Cherokee has shown good power for anything I've asked it to do in everyday driving.