Jeep's Rugged Disguise

Sydney Morning Herald

Saturday August 16, 2008

Jaedene Hudson & Joshua Dowling

The car Jeep Cherokee

The price From $39,990

Vital statistics 2.8-litre turbo diesel with five-speed automatic or 3.7-litre V6 with four-speed automatic

Consumption and emissions 9.4L/100km (diesel), 11.7L/100km (petrol); 250g/km, 283g/km

HE This is the third-generation Jeep Cherokee off-roader. Previous "new" models were often just facelifts but the company claims this one really is new from the ground up. It also has Jeep's new look, with the more upright headlights, first seen on the Commander a few years ago. What do you think of the look?

SHE I don't like it. I much preferred the more rounded look of the previous model. It still looked rugged but it wasn't as boxy as this one.

HE Well, we are off to a good start then because I am also not a fan. I think Jeep has made it look boxy to give it a rugged image but once you get up close and personal with the car, you soon realise just how much plastic there is in this thing.

SHE You don't even need to get that close because the plastic-rubber door handles are the first let-down. A lot of car makers have plastic door handles but for some reason these feel cheap and the fact that they are not body coloured makes them look cheaper.

HE Jeep would say they left them black to give them a rugged look. I have more of a problem with the interior. The dashboard and door trims feel as if they are made of outdoor furniture plastic. The indicator wiper stalks are flimsy, the seats are flat and uncomfortable and I really just didn't enjoy driving it.

SHE We tested the petrol and the diesel engines back to back over two weeks. I thought the diesel worked slightly better but both were relatively uninspiring and unrefined. I found it hard to get comfortable as the accelerator pedal is considerably lower than the brake pedal.

HE That's interesting, as I preferred the petrol V6. It's not the best engine around but I preferred it to the diesel. The delay in power was really noticeable and for me it was hard to drive smoothly. The other issue I had with this car is that it is not as big as it looks. I measured the cargo area with the back seats raised and lowered and the Subaru Forester has more cargo space - and more occupant space - even though the Forester is a smaller vehicle.

SHE I don't think they have packaged the interior very well at all.

HE So do we have anything nice to say about this car?

SHE Um, there must be something ... at least it has good four-wheel-drive capability.

HE You took it off-road, didn't you?

SHE I haven't driven this one off-road but I did drive the previous model several times and, to be honest, it almost feels as if they have gone a step backwards.

HE I guess the trouble is its off-road ability is likely to be of little consolation to most people as they don't use the 4WD ability that often.

SHE You are driving around in the city in a compromised vehicle in the hope that one day you might go bush.

HE So I guess the new Cherokee is not for either of us but what would you consider for the money?

SHE If I wanted a soft-roader to spend most of its time around the city, I would take the Subaru Forester, or if I planned to go a little further off the beaten track, I would take the Nissan X-Trail. And you?

HE I prefer the Forester. The X-Trail is worth considering but I don't think it drives as well as the Forester. If I wanted something with the grunt of the Jeep, I would get a Toyota RAV4 V6. I feel a bit sorry for poor old Jeep. The company is clearly excited about its new model but as much as it pains us to say this - Japanese competition is just so much stronger and better built.

© 2008 Sydney Morning Herald

Back to News Index | Back to Home