Jeep Patriot: Styling Impressions

Replying to: stumpf2000 (Apr 30, 2006 9:13 am)

Replies to this message:
• clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 2:36 pm)
  • pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 5:52 pm)
    • clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 6:29 pm) and 2 more...

Replies to this message:
• gljvd (Apr 30, 2006 11:24 am)
  • rsholland (May 01, 2006 5:43 am)
    • gljvd (May 01, 2006 9:51 am)

Replying to: rsholland (Apr 30, 2006 10:15 am)

Replies to this message:
• rsholland (May 01, 2006 5:43 am)
  • gljvd (May 01, 2006 9:51 am)

Replying to: gljvd (Apr 30, 2006 9:59 am)

Sorry to hear your Cherokee is dying. When it dies, if you love it. Go get an 2001. I think that was the last year. That 2001 will go at least as long as your 94, with was 12 or 13 years. So you will be good until 2013 or 2014! That should give you a lot longer with the good old Cherokee. (many, many cherokees are still running well after 20 years, so you may have your 2001 past 2021.
 
I think the Patriot is going to replace the old Cherokee quite nicely. I don't want something bigger. I like the size of my 91 Cherokee.
 
And to the gentleman that has the CRV. I had one too. You can't compare any CRV to a Cherokee. If you took any CRV off road. It would get stuck when it got to any mud over 6 deep" or snow got over a foot deep! and they would power out with 13" of snow. No low range. An awd Subaru will run circles around a CRV.
My CRV went into passing gear at 65 any time it started up a 2% grade! You can't drive a CRV in Montana without it being in passing gear 1/2 the time. and that's on a level road!
 
The CRV is an all wheel drive for ladies who don't want to get stuck on road with an inch or so of snow on them.

Replies to this message:
• pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 5:52 pm)
  • clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 6:29 pm)
    • pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 9:15 pm) and 1 more...

Replying to: clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 2:36 pm)

Replies to this message:
• clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 6:29 pm)
  • pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 9:15 pm)
    • clarkkent (May 01, 2006 7:18 am)

Replying to: pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 5:52 pm)

I sure don't know what your smoking, but it isn't made out of rice!
 
I have a wrangler and a Cherokee and I'd take the ride and handling and road ability of both of those over a CRV (which I also owned) any day! Both of my Jeeps will go places your CRV couldn't even try.
 
That being said, You couldn't even drive your CRV in anything over a foot of snow here in Montana. My CRV would power out all the time.
 
As I said before, the CRV is for ladies who don't want to be stuck in and inch or two of snow.
 
I have driven my Cherokee 1991 on a 4k trip this summer. Great ride, great seats, plenty of power, lots of room.
 
It just comes down to the fact that here in the west there are lots of places I would feel uncomfortable going in the winter in a CRV for fear of getting stuck, should it snow. I take a Jeep. That way I know I'll not usually get stuck.
 
Very unusual, but once we had over 48" of snow. Yes 4 feet! It took me several hours and three sets of chains to get down my 1/4 drive. But with low range and 2 sets of chains on the front and one on the back of the Cherokee I got out. My 4x4 Subaru with a low range got 6 feet! IN IT'S LOW RANGE. No power. A CRV wouldn't have had a chance. I know they were not built for that type of snow, the Jeep wasn't either, but the Jeep got out. It took some time. Back and forth, snow was over the hood but it did get out. So the CRV is not an option if you really want a 4x4 you can trust to get you out or get you home in the winter in the west. + the CRV is built with the structural integrity of an aluminium beer can!. Don't tell me it isn't I had one. Maybe the newer ones are better but my 2001 was nothing more than a beer can on wheels.
 
Even my wife thought it was the most unsafe car we ever drove. If the CRV is good for you, Great. It's
just not strong or powerful enough for the mountains
 
Also used CRV's sell for about 25 under book out here. So they are a good buy for those ladies that don't want to be stuck in the snow.

Replies to this message:
• pegacorn (Apr 30, 2006 9:15 pm)
  • clarkkent (May 01, 2006 7:18 am)

Replying to: clarkkent (Apr 30, 2006 6:29 pm)

I'm not sure why you're telling me about life on the road to Larry, Darryl, and Darryl's house.
 
The CR-V is NOT, I repeat NOT an offroad vehicle. I thought that was a given, but you seem to be arguing with a your straw man perception of my post. So, lets take it down the line again.
 
CR-Vs are NOT offroaders. A Cherokee or Wrangler cannot:
 
- Approach 27+ mpg on the highway, save for the early models of the XJ with the Renault sourced diesel.
 
- Carry passengers in the same comfort. Less legroom, awful back seat (no headrests for Chrissake!), small trunk with tire intruding on space, bulbous center hump through entire vehicle, narrow doors.
 
- Offer same road experience. Awkward ergonomics (they were still using 80's GM-style controls until at least the 97 models; that was replaced by Neon-esque interior which lives on in almost identical form in the '06 Wrangler)
 
- Offer the same supple ride. The solid axles of the Cherokee are not the choice for a compliant ride. They are jittery on rough surfaces, though not as bad as a leaf-sprunk axle under an empty pickup bed. There's a reason that solid axles are not used in passenger cars anymore. They are crude and unrefined... for an application which requires extreme strength, they are marvelous. For a road vehicle, they are terrible.
 
- Offer the same steering feel. The XJ's used recirculating ball steering, with a very slow ratio for maximum precision in precarious tracking, and with extra play and numb feedback to keep jarring impacts from transmitting from the tires to your wristbones. Once you touch pavement, the steering is absolutely horrendous. Get out on the highway, and whip the wheel to and fro through about 5-10 degrees of rotation. Pure slop!
 
The CR-V, on the other hand, is slighty more adept than a typical FWD car in nasty conditions. I don't live in Montana, and barring outbreak of nuclear war, will not. I don't like dealing with the snow in the suburban midwest, being a native sun-belter. You can see from our geographic origins alone that we are looking at two entirely different concepts of a vehicle.
 
For you, an all-terrain capable SUV is a necessity to claw over the river and through the woods of America's Siberia. To me, it's a suburban street car with some extra capabilites for weekend fun. To you, a crossover ute is a wannabe that can't handle your daily needs. For me, it's the perfect best-of-both-worlds blend. It is all the advantages of the SUV form and packaging without the liabilities.
 
You keep talking about the mountains, but there are no mountains here... my Honda has seen mountains twice, and they were pansy Appalacians as experienced on a dynamite blasted interstate grade. It doesn't matter if there is snow piled up, as the plow will be here before I leave the house! I could just as easily drive a car, except:
 
A - the CR-V does better on ice. Not avalanches of snow, but simple freezing rain. Chains are irrelevant... they are banned in this state because they are not needed and damage roads.
 
B - I traded in my pickup, and I need the space to haul bulky items. With the seats folded flat, I have a great deal of space.
 
C - At 6'2, I don't have much headroom in short cars.
 
Don't get the impression that I am slamming the XJ either. If you have the need for what is essentially an ATV with a weathershell, it is hard to beat. Every single issue which makes it a poor street vehicle allows it to shine in rough conditions. It's on-road performance is simply wretched, and with the large numbers of 4x2, 4 door automatic XJ that were produced, it was clearly most often bought as an alternative to a passenger car, not as, well, a Jeep.

Replies to this message:
• clarkkent (May 01, 2006 7:18 am)

Replying to: gljvd (Apr 30, 2006 11:24 am)

Replies to this message:
• gljvd (May 01, 2006 9:51 am)