Quadro

GX and RX are different class of vehicles. GX is a truck and RX is a car.

Both Cherokee and Grand Cherokee are just cars. So where is the better build quality (not the interior materials, but durability of the chassis) comes from?

SW17LS

LOL, the Grand Cherokee is not a car. Its a very capable unibody SUV, as it always has been. Like I said before, I'd put the Grand Cherokee up against any vehicle off-road any day. You can believe what you want, but reality is reality.

The Cherokee and Grand Cherokee are in different classes just as the RX and GX are.

You keep trying to make this about the Jeep, and it's not. It's about unibody vs BOF SUVs. You're not a Jeep fan...I'm not a GX fan but at least I can cede that it's a capable vehicle.

T4Fun

lets see a silly jeep tow the space shuttle.
tundra towed space shuttle at 300000lbs
the specs on websites are there like you said, rated by DOT.
in reality, can easily tow more than that. BOF wins here

T4Fun

rural america buys BOF. Last i checked, they werent rushing out to buy unibody garbage like JEEP and MDX.
thats proof enough of superiorty of BOF.

patgilm

It is a clunky drive but to me it was no clunkier than the 2013 LR4 we test drove. Even though it is unibody it actually drove like a truck to me and my wife which is why she liked it. It could be the weight of the truck since it is actually heavier than the GX which is also the reason why it probably gets horrible gas mileage. The RR Sport is the same chassis as the LR4 and to us it drove completely different, more capable handling and lighter which is also probably why it gets better gas mileage than the LR4 with I believe the same V8 engine.

I think the LR4 sells well because it is a Land Rover and has the prestige that comes with it. It is just as top heavy, drives heavy, gets worse gas mileage and to me is a little behind in the features compared to the GX. It is also proven to be more unreliable than the GX. I love the LR4, not for the prestige but the rugged look and space, but the poor gas mileage, reliability and high maintenance costs outweigh the benefits to me. Some people are willing to accept that but my wife and I are not. After my wife talked to her co-worker who has both a 2011 LR4 and a 2012 X5, she said run, run as fast as you can from the LR4 because of the problems they have had and she couldn't recommend it. She likes her X5 but my wife said even that is in the shop a lot for small electrical issues but at least she recommends that (her boss has a 2012 X5M that seems to always be in the shop too). I guess when you are used to having to take your car in to the dealer a lot it is not a big deal but when you are used to just taking your car in for routine maintenance only and are used to it being that way it is hard to accept anything different and your expectations can be a bit skewed.

Quadro

You know every time you don't like something you ask for a data to support it. To me Grand Cherokee looks exactly like a luxury version of Cherokee. The fact that both got restyled in 2014 further proves that they are both based on exactly the same chassis.

On the Jeep forum (http://www.jeepz.com/forum/cherokee-...-cherokee.html) people don't think Grand Cherokee is built better:

That sounds a lot more reasonable to me than you claiming it's somehow better built out of nothing.

If Grand Cherokee was a real SUV people who need real SUVs would be driving it. But they don't. That's because Grand Cherokee is a CUV, not an SUV. You're probably driving a Dodge Caravan shaped like an SUV LOL

SW17LS

The Grand Cherokee was all new for 2011, the 2014 is a refresh. The Cherokee is all new for 2014, it's a completely different chassis. That's like me saying the GS and the Avalon are the same chassis, they aren't.

The Cherokee is FWD based with a transverse mounted engine, the Grand Cherokee is RWD based. Completely different vehicles. The link you posted is a Cherokee forum...of course they're going to think their Cherokees are just as good as a Grand Cherokee. Go in the IS forums and see what people say about the IS being superior to the GS. Go to a 4 Runner forum and see them talk about what a waste the GX is.

The Grand Cherokee is definitely better built, as you would expect for a more expensive vehicle. As for sales, plenty of JGC owners in the Midwest. They have Jeepin events at Moab. You're just flat wrong. Plenty of people buy them and off-road them and tow. Go to the Jeep forums. It is not a Crossover. If you think it has anything to do with a Dodge caravan...you just absolutely know nothing about the vehicle.

In the end...the proof is in the sales. The JGC is a huge success. It's a great vehicle, reliability is questionable but it's comfortable, capable, well built, good looking, and a great value.

As for the LR4, I didn't care for it either when I drove it.

SW17LS

Here's a link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee_(KL)

The Cherokee is a crossover built on the Dodge Dart platform.

The Grand Cherokee is it's own platform, designed from the start to be an SUV, co-developed with Mercedes (the ML). The GC has never been a crossover.

Here's a link: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeep_Grand_Cherokee

The only vehicles it's related to are the Durango, the new Maserati SUV, and the Mercedes ML, R, GL. Also note the fact that the GC is the most awarded SUV ever. 30 of those awards are for off-road capability.

Quadro

That is as good an argument that you think it's better because you own a Grand Cherokee and not a Cherokee. You know when I go on Jeep's web site I don't get any impression that Cherokee is not a capable off-road machine (as per Jeep's claims, at least). So there you have it -- a very cheap model with off-road capabilities. Anybody who buys a Prado must be crazy -- it starts at close to 36K USD in UAE. Or maybe people understand that there is a difference between what you see on paper and what vehicles are really capable of.

Got anything to prove that unibody Jeep (or anything else unibody) is getting wheeled as hard in the dunes as the Land Cruisers? Please, I'm sure there are lots of Toyota Camry's out there too.

Go read what people who actually been to UAE write (http://lexusenthusiast.com/2013/03/1...ord-in-2012/):
You're contradicting yourself. You said because there are not many Ferrari it doesn't mean they aren't fast. Your logic is because there are more Corollas that must mean they're better than a Ferrari. Besides do you have a proof Jeep sells more SUVs outside North America than Toyota Sells Land Cruiser-derivatives?

SW17LS

This is pointless. I've provided you with the facts, you can choose to believe whatever you want.

I've said repeatedly that I was not comparing the Jeep to anything else, and that of course there were other very capable SUVs, but that the Jeep is an example of a very capable SUV that is in fact unibody in design. If you want to believe its a crossover or a Dodge Caravan fine, that doesn't change the fact that none of that is true. The fact that the Jeep is capable doesn't take anything away from the Land Cruiser or any other vehicle.

Toys4RJill

If I needed to go far into the bush offroading, there are whole bunch of vehicles I would take over the GX. A basic 4Runner with a mechanical 2H/4L lever will be superior to the electronic dash switch in the GX. Also, the GX adaptive variable suspension and KDSS will have more stress and fail points than a 4Runner with a basic nuts and bolts set up.

Not to sure about Cherokee but my thoughts are is that they are highly electronic like the GX.

Can you imagine the GX electronic transfer case malfunctioning while in 4L with a malfunctioning adaptive variable suspension stuck in the low position. No thanks.

Quadro

The point is you should pay less attention to what Jeep writes on their site (let alone take it as fact) and see what people actually use it for and what's it up to in the real world. I don't see any unibody Jeeps (or any other unibody SUV) used as workhorses the same way Land Cruisers are. Unibody Jeep is a product of US market demand and US market does not need real SUVs.

Toys4RJill

Dude, you seriously have to get over the Land Cruiser being worked in the toughest terrain crap, I know plently of contractors who have spent time in the rough regions of Afghanistan, they were using small crew cab 4WD Ford trucks to get around.

Any vehicle can stand the test of time, all that matters if it was designed and engineered for it.

SW17LS

I have never even spent more than 30 minutes on Jeeps site lol. I have one, I've driven it off-road. I belong to a forum with tens of thousands of members who wheel them and tow with them and use them for what they are designed for.

I didn't even read the thing about it being the most awarded SUV in history until I googled that Wikipedia link for you.

They have a myriad of different 4x4 systems. Mine is just Quadra Trac 1 which is basically full time AWD with stability and traction. They have two other systems, QTII which has a low range and a locking transfer case with a Range Rover risqué terrain management system, and then QuadraDrive which includes an adjustable suspension system.

The whole thing is very electronic though I agree.

Quadro

I don't claim toughest. Where did you see that? But I claim they are used far harder than any unibody Jeep is. The premise here is if a unibody SUVs were as capable you would see them equally used (or even beat) body-on-frame SUVs. Did you just say 4WD Ford trucks and not Ford crossover SUVs by any chance?