RUGGED LOOKS, COMFORT COMBINE FOR CAPABLE SUV
Just make sure to spec the right engine in the rough-and-tumble Trailhawk
So, you want a Jeep Cherokee.
You’re not alone: some 130,000 Canadians have opted for the compact soft-roader since the Cherokee nameplate was re-introduced in 2013.
The Cherokee is seen, unlike many of its direct competitors, as an aspirational vehicle, which explains why FCA keeps adding trim levels to the model. The Cherokee line may start at around $30,000, but this Trailhawk tester was priced at close to $50,000.
Included in the Cherokee’s long list of goodies is its fabulous Uconnect infotainment system. It’s powerful, logically designed, hooks up to phones extremely quickly, and is pleasing to the eye. Top marks to FCA, especially since its top competitors — the Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4, in particular — are so comparatively deficient in this area.
Score another gold star for the rest of the interior. Comfortable, lots of legroom front and rear, and well built, my Trailhawk’s cabin was also luxurious, swaddled in acres of leather. Throw in a slightly expanded trunk and you have an impressive interior.
On paper, the optional 2.0-litre turbo-four appears to be the best engine available. It certainly has the specs, boasting both 270 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque while sipping 9.1 L/100 kilometres of fuel overall.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t always feel that powerful.
It’s tough to tell whether that’s the result of turbo lag or a sometimes reluctant transmission.
In a quest to maximize fuel economy, it sometimes seems reluctant to downshift, and when it does, the engine comes on like gangbusters, all forward thrust and high-rev fury.
If you want a butch “sport cute” other than a Jeep, you might want to mosey on over to your Toyota dealer and take a look at the redesigned 2019 RAV4. Stylistically, at least, it’s even more aggressive than the Cherokee. Where previous RAV4s have been bland little blobs, the 2019 version is all muscular fender arches and rugged square edges.
Toyota offers no turbocharged engine for the RAV4, the base 2.5-L in-line four pumping out a middling 203 hp (up from 194), so it can’t compete in the performance department.
This being Toyota, though, there is a hybrid version available that combines a Dynamic Force engine with Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive. It produces a more-than-passable 203 hp — a sizable bump up from the 179 of the previous RAV4 Hybrid — and has an impressive 6.0 L/100 km overall fuel-economy rating.
Throw in an impressive Dynamic Torque Vectoring AWD system with Rear Driveline Disconnect, along with surprisingly sporty handling, and the Hybrid version of the RAV4 is definitely a viable alternative to a $50,000 Cherokee. Its interior is not as luxurious as the Trailhawk’s nor is Toyota’s Entune infotainment system as intuitive or attractive as Uconnect. If you’re used to shopping a luxury brand, you might want to take a look at the Lexus NX300.
My Trailhawk tester’s base MSRP is $38,995 — not exactly tax brackets away from the NX’s $44,050 base price. And even if Lexus Canada wants $57,200 for a fully optioned F Sport edition, it isn’t oodles more than the $49,135 Jeep wants for the fully loaded Cherokee Trailhawk tester.
Opulence is not the reason to choose the Japanese crossover over the American. The powertrain, on the other hand, might be. Again, on paper the Jeep should have the superior get-upand-go. Its turbocharged 2.0-L four boasts 35 more horsepower (the similarly configured Lexus has but 235 hp) and 37 more pound-feet of torque. And the Trailhawk’s autobox offers nine gear ratios, while the Lexus has a now-archaic six. But it’s the Japanese 2.0-L turbo-four that is the more satisfying.
Maybe you really want a Jeep. Normally, I would be offering loyalists an alternative model to the one they were initially considering. But because I like certain aspects of the Cherokee so much — the styling, interior and infotainment — in this case I’ll recommend an alternative powertrain: FCA’s Pentastar V6.
Yes, the 271-hp V6 is old tech, but the Pentastar is just about the best-sorted powertrain in the company’s lineup.
The turbo’s official 9.1 L/100 km fuel-economy rating looks vastly superior to the V6’s 10.2.
But in real world driving, my observed 12.1 L/100 km in the four is not significantly improved over the V6’s consumption. For my money, were I shopping a Cherokee, I’d opt for the older, better-sorted powertrain.