Aron9000

Nobody has mentioned the best part about the Grand Cherokee IMO. Its a man's truck.

It does work. It can tow stuff, it can go off road, it has a 300hp V6, 2 V8 options, and a diesel option, it can outrun your stupid Camaro in a straight line if you get the big engine. The engine sits North to South like a proper truck, none of this sissy engine sits east to west FWD drive based AWD system that is only designed for a snow storm like most SUV's in its price range.

The fact that the interior is world class is just icing on the cake. Nothing else can touch this truck for about 50k IMO. The 4-Runner is an outdated joke when you compare it to the Grand Cherokee. Especially in terms of interior appointments and engine options. That being said, 5 or 10 years from now, if you offered me a 2017 Grand Cherokee or 2017 4-Runner with similar miles in similar condition, I'd buy the 4 Runner any day of the week. Their reputation for durability and reliability is unmatched.

grayson73

Doesn't Jeep have TERRIBLE reliability though?

litesoarer

Quality, for me.

SW17LS

It's still an open question, and it ha improved a lot. My 2011 Jeep had some electrical issues, my 2014 was perfect. I know Bit's has been great. I know several others with them that have been great too.

Some reliability issues are worth it IMHO though because it's such a nice truck.

mmarshall

As you've probably surmised from some of my previous posts, I myself consider it a borderline-luxury product from a bread-and-butter, non-luxury automaker. But, of course, most of that experience was from a couple of test-drives and a reviews I did a few years ago (on the present-generation model)....very little compared to what you two have had. Since you two lived with present-generation JGCs for some time, and drove them day in and day out, in this case, I'll defer to your own views and experience with them. The reliability experience, of course, is mixed. Some owners have had decent, or even excellent luck, with them......others have reported problems. We know in our case, Steve, you had some of both.

(Hey, without using any names, I get irked when people try to tell me what kind of car the Verano is, with little knowledge or experience with it LOL)

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

funny thing - i was just in western canada, and jgc's are EVERYWHERE, so they can't be that 'terrible'.
my previous trip there 2 years ago was what convinced me to get one.

Toys4RJill

I am sure you can have an endless argument with the topic of a IRS (Jeep) vs the Live Axle (Toyota). Then the long argument of the uni--body vs body on frame could go on for a long time. You could then argue the Jeep advantage of towing vs the Toyota advantage of payload. At the end of the day, both the JGC and 4Runner do what they are supposed to do for their owners well. I would argue the 4Runner and GX460 compare well to the entire line of Jeep GC trims, for a me, a Jeep GC does nothing for me and neither does the GX is reality. I do like the 4Runner .

I would say Toyota does body on frame vehicles very well for the Toyota and their Lexus brand. I think Toyota is having close to record sales with the current 4Runner and people seem to be content with paying the premium Toyota charges for their body on frame vehicles.

Resale value too!

bagwell

so no issues at all with yours Bit?

Toys4RJill

And this is just it and how it relates to this thread. You love the Buick brand and you push Buick products a lot. There is nothing wrong with that. It simply goes to show you what the Buick brand does for you. Now in contrast, someone else doesn't feel much for the brand or for the models.

Now as for your Verano, Buick on their website uses the tagline "Eye popping luxury comes standard" yet then when you go into the actual Verano part it says "Upgrade your expectations" ....if you dive into the Verano options and such, a leather wrapped steering wheel is not standard, nor are leather/faux seats, power seats you have to pay extra for, and their is no standard touchscreen or back up camera. And mechanically a solid bean axle is a question mark. Is the Verano a luxury car? Is Buick a luxury brand? I am really not sure.

IMO, Buicks most appealing product is their Cascade convertible. IMO it by far has the best image for the brand.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

none. had 3 oil changes and a tire rotation (all free) so far.

mmarshall

Once again, Jill, you only got it partly right. I am not necessarily a Buick junkie....and, regardless of how you spin it, I don't push the brand. I did like the OLD 60s-vintage Buick Electra 225s and other full-size Buick sedans of the era for their Cream-of-Wheat suspensions, sound insulation, and butter-smooth, don't-feel-the-transmission-at all drivetrains. And I like the new, smaller, Opel-based Buicks for their good build quality and quiet running (by compact standards). But I was not a fan of the controversial, boat-tail early-70s Riviera's staying (and build quality went down on big Buicks after 1970). Nor was I a fan of the 70s's vintage Skyhawk subcompacts, nor of the many disappointing and unreliable Buick lemons built in the 80s and 90s. Nor was I a fan of the much-hyped mid/late 80s Grand National, which I thought looked ugly inside and out with the all-black theme. Nor am I that big a fanboy of the current Buick Lacrosse or Enclave, which, IMO, are plush inside but don't show the same overall build-quality of the smaller Opel-based Buicks. The LaCrosse's sister Chevy Impala, though, is really an impressive product...more in road-manners than ultimate build quality.


Yes, the Cascada is a nice product, built like a Swiss Watch. (I assume you read the full-review I did several months ago). But, once again, like the Verano, (in fact, even more so than the Verano, which has a markedly different front end from the Opel Astra), the Cascada is virtually a 100% rebadge of the European Opel/Vauxhall Cascada convertible. Buick obviously spent almost no money or development funds at all on it....one look at it proves that. But one major error Buick did in its design (besides omitting some traditional Buick trim like the fender-portholes and tri-color shield), was using what IMO are ridiculously-sized 20" wheels and low-profile rubber. It rides OK on a perfectly glass-smooth road, but hit any kind of bump or road-imperfection, and, even with recommended tire pressures, it bounces up and down like a kiddy-car. If they'd drop the wheel size down to 16-17" (or maybe 18" at the most, like on the Verano), and put on higher-profile rubber, I'd give it a serious look myself. (and then you and I would be arguing about the Cascada every day LOL)

MattyG

I loved, loved, loved the Grand National and the subsequent GN-X. It was Darth Vader's wild and crazy 80's rocket and it was all Buick, going back to their tradition of building outrageous power plants stuffed into mid-size rwd sedan bodies (specifically two door sedans).

Yeah horrible build quality but the numbers that car posted 0-60 and quarter mile would embarrass quite a few of today's cars. And to boot, Pontiac then decided to take that very motor - the 3.8 turbo-intercooled mill, and put it inside one of the slickest domestic bodies of the era, and came up with the white 20th anniversary Turbo Trans Am.

For my imaginary collectors garage... one of each please parked next to each other as interesting footnotes in 80's history

BrownPride

Chrysler can throw all the leather they want inside of the Jeep GC, that still doesn't mean the interior is of overall higher quality than a comparably-priced RX. Personally I can't understand why people spend so much on these Grand Cherokees. There's something about the Jeep name that Americans love despite their mediocrity and poor reliability. Similar to the love affair with mediocre Tahoes, Yukons, and Escalades.

For $50K a Q5 3.0 with luxury package (leather dash and doors) floats my boat a lot better than either of those two.

SW17LS

All you have to do is sit in a Overland or better Grand Cherokee and an RX to see the clear difference in quality.

In many ways the interior is better than the interior in my LS, so it certainly is compared to the RX.

Has nothing to do with the name, I'm clearly a big Lexus fan, the GC just won me over. Honestly, I would never even consider an RX or a GX compared to one.

The Q5 is a nice vehicle, I looked at them too, they're much smaller though. A Q7 I would probably take over a GC, but they're bigger and considerably more money.

mmarshall

Well, I respect your opinion on it. Darth Vader looks, though, generally aren't my cup of tea......though the Mercury Marauder (remember that from 1999?) managed to do it fairly decently. It was somewhat underpowered, though (I test-drove one)....that 302 HP 4.6L V8 just didn't have the torque that the long, heavy Marauder needed to be a true muscle-car. The Grand National/GNX powerplants IMO, weren't all that impressive, either, even with some of them running over 300 ft-lbs, of torque. I'll admit, though, that that was partly because I had grown up, some 20 years earlier, with the REAL performance engines in the 1960s......including the 1969-70 Buick GS400, whose enormous 455 c.i. V8s, also used in Pontiac GTO Judge models and Olds 4-4-2's, were running some 500 ft-lbs. of torque. Though others exist, the only car that I've personally driven since then, that even comes close to that kind of power, is the Mercedes E63 AMG.