1998 Cherokee , 5 Speed, Manual, Low Miles, 4x4, No Reserve! Clean Carfax on 2040-cars

Auto blog

FCA plotting larger Jeep Renegade, Fiat 500XL

The joint development of the new Jeep Renegade and Fiat 500X goes to show what the combined efforts of the Fiat Chrysler Automobiles group can yield. But don't expect the Italian-American automaker to stop there. According to Autocar, the company is planning to base another pair of larger SUVs on the same platform. The Jeep version would take the place of the previous Compass and Patriot, slotting in between the Renegade and Cherokee. Meanwhile, the Fiat version would further bolster the Cinquecento lineup to sit alongside the 500 hatchback, 500L minivan and 500X crossover. Details remain few and far between at the moment, but they wouldn't be the extent of the growth plans for either brand. Jeep is reportedly zeroing in on a decision on the long-rumored sub-Renegade model, while also preparing to expand up-market with the return of the Grand Wagoneer. Fiat is reportedly abandoning the prospect of offering a full model line as it once did. While the 500 range will continue to form a vital part of the brand's business, it's also tipped to be going after the no-frills, bare-bones market dominated by Renault's Dacia brand. To that end, it would seek to build upon the Panda by offering a larger, but still low-cost hatchback to rival the Ford Focus and VW Golf, and succeed the discontinued Fiat Bravo, but based on the 500L's platform and built in Turkey to keep costs down. This second pillar of the Fiat brand wouldn't likely be offered in the US, however, where we'd expect the 500 line to continue representing the Italian automaker. Related Video:

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

Why the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk really exists

"But really, what do we do for Jeep? We listen to our customers, that's our job. We give them what they want. So the reason why is, they ask. Lots of them asked." – Darryl Smith "Why not?" It's a simple-enough explanation and one that should resonate with any car lover who views the absurd and the gloriously pointless as fundamental principles of their passion. And putting a ridiculously powerful engine into a vehicle that would normally not have one is perhaps the pinnacle of that. It's the reason that so many of us view a Mercedes-AMG E63 wagon as far cooler than an SLS AMG with roughly the same engine. With that in mind that we sat down with two of the men responsible for the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, the latest entry into the absurd and gloriously pointless segment. We wanted to find out from Darryl Smith, director for SRT engineering, and Paul Mackiewicz, vehicle development manager, if there were actual market-based reasons for the Trackhawk's creation. Effectively, why'd they actually do it? "Why not?" Smith immediately offered during an interview at the New York Auto Show, clearly possessing a similar mindset. "But really, what do we do for Jeep? We listen to our customers, that's our job. We give them what they want. So the reason why is, they ask. Lots of them asked." View 24 Photos If "lots" of people are asking for a 707-horsepower, 645-pound-feet, off-road-capable, luxury-lined, five-person SUV, then perhaps we shouldn't be too worried about the demise of the human-driven automobile after all. "There is a very defined customer base out there that want a sport SUV," Mackiewicz said. "They want a sports car with the capabilities of having an SUV, of being able to tow, of being able to drive their sports car all year round. And that's what this car enables. It is ultimate performance, all year round, in any condition." If BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and even Maserati can produce high-performance SUVs, doesn't it seem fitting that the father of all SUV brands should top them all under the hood? Of course, expanding the 6.2-liter Hellcat engine beyond the Challenger and Charger is clearly a smart business case in the current SUV-obsessed marketplace. FCA had a lust-worthy engine, and it had a solid performance base in the existing Grand Cherokee SRT, so it can be argued that marrying the two made sense and that it could be done with minimal fuss — even if in practical terms, it's absurd.