2014 Jeep Compass Latitude on 2040-cars

Auto blog

'84 MotorWeek Cherokee, Bronco and Blazer comparison indulges your SUV nostalgia

These days, truck-based, full-frame SUVs are somewhat of a rarity on the auto landscape due to the rapid rise in popularity of easier-driving, car-based crossovers. Although, without the gradually building popularity of these chunky, high-riding vehicles decades ago, it's unlikely that America's roads would be filled with so many CUVs today. In its latest dig into the archives, MotorWeek has found a 1984 comparison test of a trio of these early Sport Utility Wagons, as long-time host John Davis called them, that helped get acceptance of this segment going. This is a red, white and blue test of the SUVs from American automakers at the time and pits the Chevrolet Blazer, Ford Bronco and Jeep Cherokee (specifically in Wagoneer guise) against each other. Driving manners and interior usability are considered in the evaluation, but Motorweek actually takes these vehicles off road, too. Among the bigger revelations is the improvement in on-road ability in the past 30 years. While specific 0-60 times aren't given, all three models take around 10 seconds just to get to around 50 miles per hour in the 500-feet on-ramp acceleration test. Check out this clip to see just how far this segment has progressed in the past three decades or just get a blast of nostalgia from these now vintage models. News Source: MotorWeek via YouTube Chevrolet Ford Jeep SUV Off-Road Vehicles Classics Videos Ford Bronco chevy blazer

Jeep Wrangler JK's exit interview: brilliant, flaws and all

The engineers at Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, Jeep's current steward (and there have been many), have to be sweating bullets as they ready the forthcoming, long-overdue replacement for the Wrangler. It's the brand's icon, its most recognizable vehicle, and the reason Jeep enjoys such success today. Most brands use their flagships to lure shoppers who will then take home a more practical, pedestrian model. Think about the relationship between Corvettes and Malibus in the Chevy showroom. For Jeep, however, the Wrangler is a business unto itself: Nearly one in four Jeeps sold new last year was a Wrangler. That's a lot of pressure as Jeep gears up to replace the current model, codenamed JK, which has been on the road since 2007. I took a Wrangler into the woods to ponder it all. The Wrangler lineup starts around $26,000 but climbs rapidly from there. At the upper end of the spectrum sits the Rubicon Hard Rock, which builds on the already capable Rubicon's locking differentials and electronic front sway bar disconnect with a host of styling goodies. At $43,325 as tested, the Hard Rock is no cheap trail toy. Wranglers have gotten more comfortable and capable over the years, but driving one is still an exercise in compromises. Luxury here means durable leather upholstery and a lot of bass from the stereo. The driving experience is of the "well, it's better than it used to be" variety on pavement. The rational buy in this segment is the Toyota 4Runner Trail, which goes off-road almost as well as the Jeep and does everything else way better. But nobody takes home a Wrangler because it makes sense. It's a middle finger extended in the direction of conformity while fording the river of beige Corollas between home and office. You don't need a Wrangler, but you probably want one. That's why Jeep sold more than twice as many Wranglers as Toyota did 4Runners last year – and the 4Runner sells well. Wrangler sales aren't slipping, but increasingly stringent emissions and safety standards are signs of the inevitable forward march of progress – and so Wrangler must change with the times. Simple ways to improve the Wrangler are obvious: An updated interior with a modern infotainment system, user-selectable traction control modes tailored to specific terrain conditions, an eight-speed automatic, better aerodynamics, and a lot of weight-saving aluminum are inevitable.

Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.