2013 Nissan Pathfinder

[SVT32V]

I guess the question is whether it would sell any worse if, all else being equal, it had no more off-road ability than a Ford Edge.

In the case of something like the explorer that really never had off-road prowess to begin with it obviously matters little.

I would argue that the GC and the Jeep name (no matter how sullied by the patriot/compASS) need to have significant capability even if it is rarely/ever used.

I would expect the press to also be rather unforgiving if the GC loses its off-road credibility.

[Rupert]

I don't know much about off-roading, but even the boxy current Liberty doesn't seem have a following that approaches the Cherokee's. Surely there's some middle ground that stops short of the Wrangler, especially now that Jeep has all-out crossovers.

Well, I think the people who would appreciate a modern Cherokee already have a Jeep they can buy instead-- the four-door Wrangler.

[Rupert]

In the case of something like the explorer that really never had off-road prowess to begin with it obviously matters little.

I would argue that the GC and the Jeep name (no matter how sullied by the patriot/compASS) need to have significant capability even if it is rarely/ever used.

I would expect the press to also be rather unforgiving if the GC loses its off-road credibility.

The Explorer was as good as any other mid-size SUV that came with open diffs (all of the base models at the time) off road until they gave it IRS.

[93JC]

Well, I think the people who would appreciate a modern Cherokee already have a Jeep they can buy instead-- the four-door Wrangler.

I think they target a completely different customer.

[Rupert]

Explain, please.

[ifcar]

Well, I think the people who would appreciate a modern Cherokee already have a Jeep they can buy instead-- the four-door Wrangler.

Again, they cost a fortune. $26,000 base, $28,000 if you want power windows, $29,000 if you want power windows and an automatic. And even for that money, it's still a cruder on-road vehicle than a modern-day Cherokee would have to be.

[Atomic]

yes. the wrangler/unlimited can get quite pricey. if not, i think i would own one for hiking, fishing and camping expeditions. i doubt i would ever drive it across country as i might with a more civilized jeep (let's say the cherokee). a wrangler is made so that a person could take a hose to the interior (being careful, mind you) and wash it down, something that should not happen with any other modern day jeep product.

[Rupert]

Again, they cost a fortune. $26,000 base, $28,000 if you want power windows, $29,000 if you want power windows and an automatic. And even for that money, it's still a cruder on-road vehicle than a modern-day Cherokee would have to be.

Are there any mid-size trucky SUVs (not cute utes) that are cheaper? The Grand Cherokee is about $28k.

I do see some room between the Wrangler and the GC, but I think the four-door Wrangler is too close to what a new Cherokee would have to be. If the Cherokee had real off-road cred, better than the GC, and cost $22k or so, then it would probably work. But then why keep the four-door Wrangler?

[93JC]

Explain, please.

The Cherokee's purpose wasn't to be explicitly just a recreational vehicle. That's all a Wrangler is for: fun. The Cherokee was multipurpose. It could more easily accommodate people and cargo. It was much more space-efficient. It was available in a more luxurious trim. It was smaller. It was more fuel-efficient. It was quick. It just so happened it had half-decent offroad chops too.

If you frame your perceptions based on why people are buying old Cherokees today then yes, the Wrangler is a suitable substitute. People who bought Cherokees new didn't buy them because they wanted a offroad beater vehicle, they bought them because they could do anything they wanted with them be it offroading, hauling cargo or serving as a family vehicle.

Wranglers are cool but they're toys. They're play-things, like a sports car. The Cherokee was to the Wrangler as the Ford Taurus was to the Mustang. (sort of, anyway)

[ifcar]

Are there any mid-size trucky SUVs (not cute utes) that are cheaper?

Irrelevant -- the Wrangler is a compact SUV, and on the small end of the class at that.

[Rupert]

The Cherokee's purpose wasn't to be explicitly just a recreational vehicle. That's all a Wrangler is for: fun. The Cherokee was multipurpose. It could more easily accommodate people and cargo. It was much more space-efficient. It was available in a more luxurious trim. It was smaller. It was more fuel-efficient. It was quick. It just so happened it had half-decent offroad chops too.

If you frame your perceptions based on why people are buying old Cherokees today then yes, the Wrangler is a suitable substitute. People who bought Cherokees new didn't buy them because they wanted a offroad beater vehicle, they bought them because they could do anything they wanted with them be it offroading, hauling cargo or serving as a family vehicle.

Wranglers are cool but they're toys. They're play-things, like a sports car. The Cherokee was to the Wrangler as the Ford Taurus was to the Mustang. (sort of, anyway)

Alright, I can dig that.

But where does the four-door Wrangler fit in? I guess that's the crux of my argument, that the four-door Wrangler coupled with the GC pretty much fill that niche today.

[Rupert]

Irrelevant -- the Wrangler is a compact SUV, and on the small end of the class at that.

... Have you seen the Unlimited? Thing is bigger than my Explorer!

[ifcar]

... Have you seen the Unlimited? Thing is bigger than my Explorer!

I'm seeing conflicting stats, but nothing that puts it outside the compact SUV class. Your Explorer is longer even than today's Grand Cherokee, which itself is some seven inches (by one source) or 15 inches (by another) longer than the Wrangler Unlimited.

But if you're arguing that the Wrangler Unlimited is so huge, wouldn't that make a nice niche for a smaller off-road four-door?

[Rupert]

Yes, that was hyperbole on my part, but the point is that the four-door Wrangler is not a compact SUV, which makes my question of relative price relevant. Actually, it's relevant anyway.

[ifcar]

Yes, that was hyperbole on my part, but the point is that the four-door Wrangler is not a compact SUV, which makes my question of relative price relevant. Actually, it's relevant anyway.

If you're counting compact SUVs as midsize, then the answer to your question is that the Nissan Xterra is significantly cheaper.

[Rupert]

$25k isn't significantly cheaper than $27k, IMO.

[ifcar]

$25k isn't significantly cheaper than $27k, IMO.

They're $3,000 apart comparably equipped. Further, options are more expensive on the Wrangler, so the more you want the greater the difference.

[Rupert]

Still not huge. What's the point, anyway?

[2o6]

Still not huge. What's the point, anyway?

That IS huge. That's the price difference between two class sizes.

[ifcar]

Still not huge. What's the point, anyway?

The point is that there is room for a model in the Jeep lineup that costs less than the Wrangler and has a better balance of off-road and on-road abilities.

[Rupert]

I still disagree. Liberty, GC, Wrangler, four-door Wrangler seems to cover it pretty well. I think without either the Liberty or the four-door Wrangler, there would be plenty of room. As is, seems like a tight fit.

[ifcar]

I still disagree. Liberty, GC, Wrangler, four-door Wrangler seems to cover it pretty well. I think without either the Liberty or the four-door Wrangler, there would be plenty of room. As is, seems like a tight fit.

I think I'd said earlier a more Cherokee-like Liberty would fill this niche well because Jeep now has all-out compact crossovers. The Cherokee softened into the Liberty so Jeep could compete with the Escape; it no longer needs to fill both roles.

[TurboDan]

I agree. Currently, the Liberty fills this role. Obviously, it's not an off-roader in the sense that the Cherokee was, and it's been pegged as a more feminine vehicle until its latest redesign, but a having Liberty and a Cherokee doesn't make a whole lotta sense. Personally, I'd like to see them kill off the Liberty and just go full-on with a new vehicle called the Cherokee.

I actually always liked the Liberty. I looked at one when shopping for the LR2, but ended up going with the LR because I found one at a good price, with the features I wanted. I had no interest in a Liberty Sport, and no good Limiteds were at the local lots when I was looking.

[Rupert]

I think I'd said earlier a more Cherokee-like Liberty would fill this niche well because Jeep now has all-out compact crossovers. The Cherokee softened into the Liberty so Jeep could compete with the Escape; it no longer needs to fill both roles.

[Atomic]

another distinction between the jeep wrangler unlimited and the cherokee is the inability of many seniors to get in and out of the wrangler and less hassle entering a more "pedestrian" cherokee. i doubt many older adult would be in the market for rugged jeep, but as a sun of an ailing mother, she could not get in-and-out of a wrangler. well, she has been know to surprise me

[giant_mtb]

So it went from looking pretty cool and SUV-y to looking like a vagina-mobile.

Cool.

[SVT32V]

The Explorer was as good as any other mid-size SUV that came with open diffs (all of the base models at the time) off road until they gave it IRS.

Which wasn't as good as the GC with SFA/SRA and coil sprung, it also never had any version that came with skid plates etc. that gave it more capability.

The IRS versions were also probably half of the explorers BOF years.

[Rupert]

Which wasn't as good as the GC with SFA/SRA and coil sprung, it also never had any version that came with skid plates etc. that gave it more capability.

The IRS versions were also probably half of the explorers BOF years.

Your statement was different than that, and it was wrong. Even so, skid plates don't add capability other than to make the driver more confident to do something stupid. More clearance, bigger/better tires, longer suspension travel, softer suspension, better approach/departure angles, better gear ratios, and lockable/limited diffs give a rig more capability. I've driven lots of stock SUVs and trucks all over the place, and I'd drive the Explorer anywhere I went in, for example, the Grand Cherokee I had for a summer.

BTW, the Grand Cherokee has never been SFA. Just the Cherokee was coils and SFA. The Explorer was SRA until the 2002 model year, and was arguably still reasonable capable after the IRS change.

[SVT32V]

Both the ZJ and WJ GCs used the quadralink front suspension, much like the cherokee is was a solid front axle with coil springs. Only the 2005 and up WK and WK2 are IFS.

I disagree, skid plates do add capability, like not ripping off pieces underneath, protecting oilpans etc. There is a difference between getting hung up on something due to clearance issues and just getting dinged by a rock that holes an oilpan and leaves you stranded.

[SVT666]

The Explorer was as good as any other mid-size SUV that came with open diffs (all of the base models at the time) off road until they gave it IRS.

Yup.  The ones with IRS are better.  I have one and it's got several inches more ground clearance, and that was the biggest problem the solid axle Explorers had (We had two of those).  Maybe articulation was better, but it wasn't easy dodging rocks and rougher terrain with only 6.5" of ground clearance.  I have taken ours through rougher terrain and over bigger obstacles than we ever took our older ones just because of the much better ground clearance.