2017 Jeep Wrangler Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Auto critic calls out Corvette, Mustang and Cherokee faithful

Most automotive purists fear change, but not without reason. Change, after all, did kill big-block V8s, along with most station wagons and manual transmissions. But change has also brought with it far more performance, safety and fuel economy - not to mention ridding the world of shag carpet interiors, bias-ply tires and those horrible motorized seatbelts of the early '90s.
By this time next year, the Chevy Corvette, Jeep Cherokee and next-generation Ford Mustang will all be on sale and will all, in some way, have angered or offended purists. To those critics, Mark Phelan of the Detroit Free Press is preemptively telling them to stop complaining - at least until they've all been driven. From the Corvette's square taillights and the Cherokee's radical nose to whatever pony car purists will harp on the 2015 Mustang for, Phelan's column points out the positives of automotive evolution and the negatives of staying the course for too long. That's fair enough, but do you think Phelan is on point, or all wet? Head on over to the Detroit Free Press to read his words, then have your say in Comments.

2017 Jeep Cherokee vs. all-new Compass

If Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) can be described as on a roll, it's not by virtue of Fiat or Chrysler. The Fiat brand continues to struggle, with a restricted lineup and fragmented dealer network. The Chrysler brand is reduced to two models: an all-new Pacifica minivan and a 4-door sedan – the 300 – desperately in need of a revamp. And while Dodge is building interest via high-performance, its platforms are dated. The only real excitement is within the Ram and Jeep ranks, where global growth is fueled by cheap gas and a wealth of new intros. The newest Jeep is the Compass, and while classified as a compact, its size, interior room, and powertrain overlap nicely (or confusingly) with its midsize sibling, the Cherokee. And given their close proximity in price – the Trailhawk Compass starts in the high $20,000s while the Cherokee begins in the low $30,000s – they both could easily appear on a buyer's short list. Jeep Cherokee Trailhawk: This is an interesting crossover entry on many levels. You could begin with its polarizing sheetmetal. If, as a Jeep loyalist in 2014, you had expected the two-box profile of its wildly successful predecessor, you'd have missed the mark by an off-road mile. With a front-wheel-drive/all-wheel-drive platform housing a transversely mounted four or (optional) V6, you could store a small refrigerator in the new Cherokee's front overhang. And the previous Cherokee's slab sides and expansive greenhouse have morphed into aggressively sculpted sheetmetal and essentially no greenhouse. Yet we've grown to like it, but only as a jacked-up, big-wheeled Trailhawk. If considering the more street-oriented, front-wheel drive Cherokees, you'd do well to cross-shop. Inside, the Cherokee Trailhawk impresses. Its design and details hit above the competition, and the Cherokee won Ward's Autos 'best interior' at the time of its introduction. The Ward's team gave a shout-out to an interior "roomy, comfortable, and boldly styled with highly sculpted shapes and contrasting colors. Fold-flat rear seats add lots of utility and the Uconnect system is the best in the business." Our take is similar, and while in its fourth model year you could expect a refresh soon (make that very soon), there's little wrong with this introductory baseline. With roughly 25 cubic feet of space behind the second-row seat, you won't be blown away by the Cherokee's cargo capacity.

Trying the new Compass and other Jeeps on for size

If any brand has license to sell several like-sized SUVs, it's Jeep, which invented the concept in the first place. Yet, with the Cherokee, Renegade, and the redesigned 2017 Jeep Compass revealed at the LA Auto Show, just how like-sized is this trio of compact SUVs? Well, as it turns out, that answer is more complicated than just looking at various spreadsheets of specifications. After the cover was pulled off the new Compass, I managed to explore each back-to-back-to-back to see how their back seats and cargo areas compare. Perhaps obviously, the Renegade is the smallest of the trio no matter how you look it. Well, it actually has the most headroom, but rear legroom is cramped (a 6-footer can't sit behind another 6-footer) and it's quite obvious the cargo area is about nine cubic feet smaller with the rear seats raised. However, the Cherokee and Compass are surprisingly similar both on paper and in person – and even more surprisingly, the newer, smaller-on-the-outside Compass is actually a bit more spacious despite being nine inches shorter in overall length. View 14 Photos When seated in back, my knees were just touching the driver seat when it was motored most of the way back to accommodate my 6-foot-3 frame. However, the Cherokee's slightly chunkier seatback meant the Compass actually had a bit more rear legroom. I then set the passenger seat to a more average distance and again, the Compass had a slight advantage. The Cherokee did have a bit more under-thigh support, however, which indicates the seat is mounted a bit higher. But that creates a problem, as headroom is more significantly affected when the panoramic sunroof is specified. In the Cherokee, my head was into the sunroof cavity and resting against its rigid surround. In the Compass, there was just enough clearance. It should be a difference, both in terms of headroom and perceived roominess that those of average height should notice. As for their cargo areas, the Compass' is larger and more useable. With the rear seats raised, it has 27.2 cubic feet versus the Cherokee's 24.6. You can scoot its sliding seat forward to nearly equal the Compass, but of course doing so reduces its rear legroom. The main reason is width. The Cherokee is noticeably narrow and it gets worse when equipped with the optional subwoofer. In terms of maximum cargo volume with the rear seats lowered, the Compass has 59.8 cubic feet to the Cherokee's 54.9.