Update: Chrysler has unveiled the totally redesigned 2005 Grand Cherokee, and it is a major improvement in many areas. The interior's styling is much more upscale and materials appear to have been vastly upgraded. An independent front suspension should improve both ride and handling. The HEMI V8 will be optional, with equivalent fuel economy but much better performance than the 4.7. The only questionable area is the exterior styling, which in the photos looks a bit oversquare. Maybe it looks better in person. At any rate, I wouldn't buy a 2004 without a very good deal. For my original review of the 2004, read on.
Jeep is currently at a crossroads, trying to decide which route to take. (Well, they’ve likely already decided, but those of us outside DaimlerChrysler won’t know for sure for a another year or two.) Should they continue to require that anything wearing the Jeep brand be capable of serious off-road driving? Or should they design at least some models for the ways the majority of SUV buyers actually use the things?
Jeep’s quandary is clearest at the top of its line. The continued existence of boutique brands like Land Rover and Hummer notwithstanding, Logic suggests that as the price of a vehicle goes up the chance of it venturing off-road goes down. Does it make sense that the $40,000, high-performance, cushy Grand Cherokee Overland be capable of the tough Rubicon Trail? Jeep has been issuing various noises that at least some future Jeeps will not be “Trail Rated.” (In this context, this term from recent Jeep advertising either signifies that Jeep cannot decide which way to go or is laying the groundwork for a time when all Jeep’s will not be so capable. If they’re smart, it’s the latter.) A larger, redesigned Grand Cherokee is coming next year. Let’s just say that if you really do want a “Trail Rated” top-of-the-line Jeep, you should probably buy one soon.
Three years ago I drove a Grand Cherokee Laredo V8, and gave it a mixed review. The steering and brakes seemed tuned for off-road driving, resulting in lazy responses on-road, while the throttle seemed far too touchy for serious off-road work. The interior also seemed far too cheap for the $35,000 sticker. This time around I drove the top-of-the-line Overland. Is this vehicle overly compromised for those who will never venture off-road? Who should buy it?
Jeep Grand Cherokee Reliability
Want better reliability information? Want to really know what difference it will make if you buy a Grand Cherokee rather than something else? It's coming in the form of "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats. To gain access to such information you have a choice: sign up to help provide the data now or pay $24.95 later. For the details, visit my website, www.truedelta.com.
Styling
Despite being a 1999 design little changed from a 1993 design, the Grand Cherokee still looks as good as any other SUV out there, especially with the 17-inch alloys standard on the Overland (a shame the formerly optional chrome finish is now standard as well, though). It manages to look at once rugged and refined, not an easy thing to do. BMW-esque headlamps, the main change with the 2001 redesign, contribute to the refined bit. If the exterior styling has any weaknesses, it’s too much roundness around the lower part of the rear hatch. They tried to go a bit too aero here, and it makes the vehicle look a bit weak from the rear. All in all, the styling remains strong enough that Mitsubishi knocked it off (in its usual heavy-handed, overdone way) for the 2004 Endeavor, and GMC borrowed some elements for its Envoy.
The grille on the 2004 has changed from 2003. The change is subtle, so subtle that most websites continue to use photos of the 2003. The seven slots in the grille are now more rectangular rather than flaring out at the top. Frankly, the previous design was better. The new one clashes with the rest of the front end, like a square peg in a round(ed) hole. Why make even such a small change in the vehicle’s last model year?
Interior styling is more mixed. Nothing wrong with the basic design. It looks functional in an upscale outdoorsey sort of way. Nothing fancy or trendy, unlike in the ritzy Range Rover or military-chic Hummer H2. And the Overland’s interior does look and feel better than that of any other Grand Cherokee courtesy of the high-grade two-toned leather on the cushy seats; faux Redwood that doesn’t look bad considering its origins on the dash, doors, and steering wheel; and platinum instrument faces. (Okay, maybe that last bit is trendy.) But a few cheap bits remain here and there, even in highly visible areas like the instrument surround. The 2005 will have a more stylish, upgraded interior if other recent Chrysler products are any indication.
Accommodations
The seats in the Overland are more comfortable than those in the Laredo I drove three years ago. In any trim level, the Jeep’s seats are softer than those in any other SUV I have driven. You sink into them, especially in the Limited and Overland. This combines with substantial side bolsters to provide far more lateral support than you’ll find in, say, a Ford or GM SUV. Overall, the front seats are comfortable and supportive. The view from these seats is very open, especially to the sides. The Grand Cherokee has a moderately low cowl (base of the windshield) and a very low beltline (base of side windows).
Things aren’t so good in the rear seat. Jeep believes in making its SUVs compact because this makes them more maneuverable off-road. It’s that authenticity thing. However, this negatively impacts rear seat room and cargo room, such that the Grand Cherokee falls well short of most of its competition. The rear seat cushion is uncomfortably low to the floor. Worst of all, because of the positioning of the front seats’ power motors there is no room under these seats for the rear seat passengers to put their feet. Children will do fine back there, but men of any size would be much happier in one of the new GM SUVs. In the Jeep’s defense, some other SUVs such as the Nissan Pathfinder and Toyota 4Runner provide about the same amount of rear seat room, but with room for feet under the front seats.
The Grand Cherokee does not offer a third row of seating—until 2005, at least. Many competitors do, albeit one suitable only for children.
As I noted, the cargo area is smaller than many others in this class. Still, it’s a usable size, and it offers one major advantage. In the past much of the Grand Cherokee’s cargo space was taken up by the spare tire, which was stowed along one side. When the truck was redesigned for 1999, Jeep managed to fit the spare under the cargo floor. Not only does this get it out of the way, but it keeps the spare clean. In many other SUVs the spare is under the truck where it gets very dirty and can be a pain to get to.
On the road
Where the Grand Cherokee distinguishes itself is on the road. It’s relatively compact size translates into nimble handling. For an SUV, the chassis has great balance. It lacks the rear-end sway that afflects many true (i.e. non-car-based) SUVs in quick, hard turns.
Last time I reported that the steering was a disappointment. It was overly light in effort and slow, probably to facilitate control when crawling across fields of boulders. Ditto the brakes, which had a very long travel and felt overly soft during on-road driving. In the 2004 Overland I found both firmer and much more satisfying during on-road use. At first I wondered if my impression of the 2001 had been off, but then I learned that Jeep revised both systems last year.
Last time I reported that the Grand Cherokee’s ride felt well-composed, but not luxurious. Well, either owning to revisions in the interim or to Overland-specific tuning and sound insulation, or both, I found the 2004’s ride very smooth and with the fluid quietness expected of a luxury vehicle (well, a luxury truck at least). Some of the taut, solid feel I noted in 2001 might have been sacrificed for this ride quality, but certainly not much of it.
This is not to say that even the Overland’s chassis is ideal for on-road use. While Ford now fits an independent rear suspension to its SUVs, the Grand Cherokee continues to use a solid axle in the front as well as in the rear. While this is good for off-road durability and ground clearance, it yields a serious amount of unsprung mass. As a result, while minor stuff is well-absorbed larger bumps and ruts can upset the vehicle, producing what the industry refers to as “head toss,” a sharp lateral motion. Some fore-aft rocking is also sometimes evident. Admittedly, both forms of undesirable motion are much reduced from the truck-based SUV norm of even five years ago (or the bargain-priced Kia Sorento). The ride quality is outstanding considering the suspension type. But these motions are more present than in car-based SUVs like the Lexus RX 330, Acura MDX, and Mitsubishi Endeavor. This is the primary cost of that “Trail Rated” badge.
The 1999 redesign brought yet another addition to the all-wheel-drive systems offered by Jeep: Quandra-Drive. This sophisticated system automatically shifts power to the wheels that have traction. With less sophisticated systems, a nominally four-wheel-drive vehicle can get stuck if only one or two wheels completely loses traction. This new system, standard on the Overland but a $550 option otherwise, should enable the Grand Cherokee to perform very well on all sorts of surfaces. If you plan to do serious off-road driving, or even often have to drive through deep snow, this is probably the system to have. Otherwise, the midlevel Quadra-Trac II system would probably do as well. I didn’t actually have the opportunity to check out the premium system's four-wheel-drive capabilities. Despite my aggressive driving, I managed to keep the truck on-road throughout my entire test drive.
Last time I drove the Laredo with its optional 235 HP V8. I requested more refinement and less volume in the noises this engine made. It was fun to drive, especially for an SUV, but I suspected it would get old fairly quickly.
The Overland comes standard with a high-output, premium-fuel-requiring, 265-horspower version of this engine. In many cases a high-output engine is created by carrying the torque curve higher. As a result, at low and moderate engine speeds engine power is at best equal to the vanilla engine, and can even be lower. Well, this is not the case with the H.O. Jeep V8. Based on the torque figure, itself thirty clicks higher, it appear that power has been boosted through most of the engine’s range. As quick as the Laredo felt, the Overland despite its additional equipment is noticeably quicker. The H.O. engine is well capable of generating a very firm push in your lower back. Does this make it worth the extra $890 it costs on the Limited? Well, that depends on how quick you like your SUVs to be, and how much you enjoy a firm push in the lower back.
For me it would come down to a second difference I noted. The Overland’s engine makes less noise, and the noise it makes is richer. Cargo van-class exhaust roar was absent this time around. But is this due to the different engine, or different sound insulation? It would be necessary to drive Laredos or Limiteds equipped with this engine and the regular 4.7 to find out.
Overall, I found the performance of the Overland far superior to the Laredo V8 I drove three years ago. Some of this is because of revisions made in the interim, some to the different trim level. Anyone considering a Grand Cherokee should drive multiple trim levels to be sure of getting the best value for their needs.
Pricing
For quick, up-to-date pricing, and especially user-specified price comparisons, check out the website I created: www.truedelta.com. Why yet another vehicle pricing website? Well, I personally lacked the patience to keep using the others. They were too slow and required too much effort, especially when trying to compare prices. So I taught myself some programming and created a site where there is no need to dig through option packages, prerequisites, and the like one by one -- the TrueDelta algorithm figures these out for you in one swift pass.
Last Words
I was much more impressed with the Grand Cherokee this time around. Its steering and braking were much improved for on-road use. I can only assume it retains its vaunted off-road capability. Major remaining weaknesses include some cheap-looking interior bits and a questionable reliability record. Check Consumer Reports to see if the latter has improved. If so, you have my blessing.
This is all assuming that off-road capability is necessary. If it’s not, then why buy a truck-based SUV at all? I’d personally rather have something like Chrysler’s Pacifica, a much different animal to be sure. Among car-based SUVs, none have everything I’m personally looking for. The Honda and Acura have awkward styling. The Mitsubishi has tacky styling, though it drives quite nicely. The Infiniti has a rough ride, the Nissan an odd view over the minivan-like dash. The Cadillac is too pricey. But someone is bound to hit one out of the park in this segment soon. Maybe you don’t agree with one of the preceding criticisms. If so, buy the associated vehicle. None is great (with the arguable exception of the Cadillac if you don’t mind spending $55,000), but they’re all pretty good.
A note on my rating: For strictly on-road use the Grand Cherokee warrants three stars. However, if you need a luxurious, powerful SUV for at least occassional off-road use, then add a star.
Update: The 2005 promises to be a much better vehicle. It will likely earn four stars, perhaps even five. I can no longer recommend the 2004 unless you absolutely cannot wait until fall or get a very, very good deal.
To learn more about my reliability research and sign up to participate in it, visit www.truedelta.com.
Epinions.com periodically updates pricing and product information from third-party sources, so some information may be slightly out-of-date. You should confirm all information before relying on it.
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.