2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jeep Comanche Moab Concept: Hell yeah!

The moment I saw the Jeep Renegade I knew it was a winner, at least in terms of styling. The Renegade's "face" is exactly what small 21st-century Jeeps should look like. It has loads of Jeep's visual heritage DNA – important! – that has been brought up-to-date in the best possible way. (Now if only they could graft that face on to the new-ish Cherokee...). Where the Renegade falls short is what's under the skin. Thanks to misguided marketing, it is saddled with a rather unremarkable USA-spec 2.4L four, undersized tires, so-so ground clearance, an iffy 9-speed automatic, and a questionable (available) low range. I don't mind the independent suspension; in fact I embrace it, as IFS/IRS is the future in terms of off-road suspension design. So, for me, the Renegade is a close-but-no-cigar vehicle, at least as it currently stands. This new Comanche, however, shows how the Renegade can evolve; both as a 4-door SUV, and in terms of how spin-off models can be developed. Big beefy tires, flared out fenders, and great ground clearance are the main ingredients that make this work visually. Still wish for a 3.6L V6 under the hood, but the 2.0L diesel isn't a bad alternative. Anyway, I think a Comanche pickup makes more sense than the predicted Wrangler-based pickup. Why? I'm not big on retro-vehicles in general. Rarely do they survive long term. Besides, the Comanche would be far more civilized and livable. I could see this Comanche pickup as a daily driver much more so than a Wrangler-based pickup. Yeah, I like and value creature comforts over ultimate off-road ability. I think most pickup buyers would agree. Finally, while there is a large devoted Wrangler following who would love a Wrangler-based pickup, I bet this Renegade-based Comanche would bring more new customers into the Jeep tent – especially over a much wider age demographic. Related Video: Image Credit: FCA Jeep jeep comanche open road

Watch this R/C Jeep Wrangler plow snow

There's no denying the fact that the Jeep Wrangler is one tough and rugged vehicle, and there is apparently little lost when the SUV is shrunk down for a 1:10th scale radio-controlled version. Proving that the Axial SCX10 Jeep Wrangler is not your run-of-the-mill R/C car, YouTube user Andrew Dykiel posted a pair of videos showing it clear about an inch of snow from his sidewalk and driveway during a snow storm last month.
Starting at $379.99, the Axial SCX10 costs more than most budget snowblowers, but other than paying a neighbor kid to shovel your snow, this might be the best way for a car guy to clear snow without the need for hot chocolate and ibuprofen. Better yet, it's electric, so it's zero-emission answer to snow removal! Scroll down to see how this R/C Jeep can help "shovel" snow from the warmth of your sofa. We've also thrown in a bonus video showing the mini Jeep negotiating the Rubicon Trail.

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.