When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We have had very good luck with the GC, my wife won’t look at anything else. As I mentioned she is on her 6th one, she got a limited X. Even though it’s on a older platform it holds its own on looks when compared to more recent designs from other vehicles. As far as snow capabilities the only way you could compare the RDX is if you chose a GC with Quadra trac I. Quadra trac II will far exceed the RDX’s capabilities as it has 4 Lo and hill descent. I used to plow for a company and often travelled when there was not even a hint of road and I would take the GC. It was made for those type of situations.
As far as the safety tech it is definitely behind but my wife is not enamored with those things and it is nice that you can get it without it being jammed down you throat being standard equipment.
We have been very fortunate. Her last one which was a limited we sold to her company. It had 100,000 miles mostly highway. It went in for one TSB for UConnect. Other than that it was maintenance, a set of tires, a set of brakes and oil and filter changes. It’s been like that for the others as well.
We have been very fortunate. Her last one which was a limited we sold to her company. It had 100,000 miles mostly highway. It went in for one TSB for UConnect. Other than that it was maintenance, a set of tires, a set of brakes and oil and filter changes. It’s been like that for the others as well.
My last 4 SUVs have been 4Runners and Grand Cherokees. I still have a Grand Cherokee today (a 2019 model) and we also have a 2019 RDX. I can tell you without a doubt that the 4Runner is still very old technology (dates way back, even the current 5th generation has been out since 2010 largely unchanged othe than a facelift a few years ago) and it still uses an ancient 5-speed transmission. This is good for the reliability factor, but that's about it. Last time I checked, the 4Runner still had a key that needs to be turned to start it (not in the Limited models though) and it has a 4wd system that has to be engaged (not full-time 4WD or AWD). It's also a body-on-frame vehicle, which some people love, but doesn't mean much to me.
The Grand Cherokee, in comparison, is ultra modern and has a lot of technology. It has an 8-speed transmission that shifts amazingly well and keeps the engine in it's powerband pretty much all the time. The infotainment system is the best I've ever used (and blows away the RDX system) and is far better than what you see in the 4Runner. It also does everything well....great ride, amazing capability, decent fuel economy, etc... My particular Grand Cherokee is a Trailhawk, so it automatically comes with the best 4WD system, full air suspension, Terrain Response settings, skid plates, towing packages, etc... As for reliability, I've had three Grand Cherokees in a row and never had a problem with any of them. My first was a 2014 Overland model that I traded in for a 2017 Trailhawk (I wanted the top 4WD system and my Overland didn't come with it unfortunately). My 2017 got rear-ended and the insurance company declared it a total loss and I replaced it with an identical 2019 Trailhawk. Never had a single problem with any of them, so they've been super reliable for me.
As for the RDX, it's a nice vehicle but I honestly prefer my Jeep. It has a smoother, more comfortable ride. The engine doesn't feel as highly strung as the 4-cylinder turbo engine in the RDX. It's also a big bigger inside and out. You sit considerably higher in the Grand Cherokee if that matters to you.
If I were you, I'd drive all three vehicles and see which you like the most. Don't worry too much about reliability because I truly believe the Grand Cherokee is a very reliable vehicle overall. It may very well be the least reliable of the three, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable in a general sense. Like I mentioned earlier, mine have all been stellar. If something goes wrong, I have a warranty. When it's out of warranty, I'll fix it myself.
I was a tech person with Chrysler and use to have a GC some years back. It was OK. This past year I rented a new one and put several hundred miles on it over many different types of roads. If you love a GC then you likely would not feel at home in an RDX. They are two very different vehicles made to appeal to very different buyers. I will not say one is better than the other but I will say one should spend some time driving each and see which one feels "right" for you. I personally find the RDX to feel....."lighter" and better handling, more fun to drive (for me).. They really do feel different and your personal tastes and desires will determine which one feels right for you.
US News and World reports surveyed many different ratings and came up with this:
As for reliability, the new GC ranked "OK" but was number 11 out of 22 vehicles in its class. (Some have issues others say they never have a problem.)
As for the new RDX:
Rankings & Research
The 2020 Acura RDX's #1 ranking is based on its score within the Luxury Compact SUVs category. Currently the Acura RDX has a score of 8.6 out of 10, which is based on our evaluation of 32 pieces of research and data elements using various sources.
My last 4 SUVs have been 4Runners and Grand Cherokees. I still have a Grand Cherokee today (a 2019 model) and we also have a 2019 RDX. I can tell you without a doubt that the 4Runner is still very old technology (dates way back, even the current 5th generation has been out since 2010 largely unchanged othe than a facelift a few years ago) and it still uses an ancient 5-speed transmission. This is good for the reliability factor, but that's about it. Last time I checked, the 4Runner still had a key that needs to be turned to start it (not in the Limited models though) and it has a 4wd system that has to be engaged (not full-time 4WD or AWD). It's also a body-on-frame vehicle, which some people love, but doesn't mean much to me.
The Grand Cherokee, in comparison, is ultra modern and has a lot of technology. It has an 8-speed transmission that shifts amazingly well and keeps the engine in it's powerband pretty much all the time. The infotainment system is the best I've ever used (and blows away the RDX system) and is far better than what you see in the 4Runner. It also does everything well....great ride, amazing capability, decent fuel economy, etc... My particular Grand Cherokee is a Trailhawk, so it automatically comes with the best 4WD system, full air suspension, Terrain Response settings, skid plates, towing packages, etc... As for reliability, I've had three Grand Cherokees in a row and never had a problem with any of them. My first was a 2014 Overland model that I traded in for a 2017 Trailhawk (I wanted the top 4WD system and my Overland didn't come with it unfortunately). My 2017 got rear-ended and the insurance company declared it a total loss and I replaced it with an identical 2019 Trailhawk. Never had a single problem with any of them, so they've been super reliable for me.
As for the RDX, it's a nice vehicle but I honestly prefer my Jeep. It has a smoother, more comfortable ride. The engine doesn't feel as highly strung as the 4-cylinder turbo engine in the RDX. It's also a big bigger inside and out. You sit considerably higher in the Grand Cherokee if that matters to you.
If I were you, I'd drive all three vehicles and see which you like the most. Don't worry too much about reliability because I truly believe the Grand Cherokee is a very reliable vehicle overall. It may very well be the least reliable of the three, but that doesn't mean it's unreliable in a general sense. Like I mentioned earlier, mine have all been stellar. If something goes wrong, I have a warranty. When it's out of warranty, I'll fix it myself.
Thank you for your insight. Do you find a comfort difference between the Overland and the Trailhawk? The new Overlands have the optional OffRoad package that includes most of TH stuff. I was looking at a TH as well. I drove both the TH (5.7) and the Summit (3.6) and although the Summit had a nicer interior although it had that diamond pattern upgrade that I can't say I liked. The dealer doesn't have an Overland so I'd like to know if it is worth finding one to compare. The TH I'm looking at has the ACC package (including that goofy self parking), the 5.7 and the HIDs along with the all leather seats (instead of the suede).
A couple of weeks ago when we had bad(ish) weather, I drove the GX, the 4R and the RDX. I hated the 4R (Limited) with the mushy brakes, nose dive and half-assed safety systems (the GX and 4R have limited ACC, the 4R has no blind spot monitor). On the highway, the 4R required constant correction and was gutless.
The GX was far nicer but drove quite large and had even older tech (the 2020 4R has CarPlay/Android Auto - the GX does not). A bit of a 1970's sedan ride but wasn't as twitchy on the highway.
The RDX drove very nicely and - of the three - was clearly the most comfortable (perhaps because it was more like my TSX in feel) but the fit and finish was a bit disappointing and the touchpad certainly needs some practice. Somehow it felt a bit like FWD. I could squeal the front tires for a split second on wet pavement (not intentionally). If I had a choice of these three, then the RDX would be it.
A few days ago I drove a Trailhawk (5.7). Unfortunately it was at night, in rush hour with two salespeople in the car. It drove very nicely, seemed very comfortable and had plenty of uumph (obviously). The engine rivaled the smoothness of the GX.
Yesterday I drove the Summit (3.6). It somehow seemed a bit more comfortable than I remembered the TH to be. that could have easily been because of the different test drives and the couple of days in between. Was I imagining the difference? On paper (and in my wallet), I'd prefer the TH (or the Overland with the Off Road package).
Hanging out in the RDX forum doesn't inspire the reliability confidence that I have with the TSX and the GC forum only reports a couple of recurring issues - most happening well out of warranty (the air suspension) and very few fit and finish issues.
I was a tech person with Chrysler and use to have a GC some years back. It was OK. This past year I rented a new one and put several hundred miles on it over many different types of roads. If you love a GC then you likely would not feel at home in an RDX. They are two very different vehicles made to appeal to very different buyers. I will not say one is better than the other but I will say one should spend some time driving each and see which one feels "right" for you. I personally find the RDX to feel....."lighter" and better handling, more fun to drive (for me).. They really do feel different and your personal tastes and desires will determine which one feels right for you.
US News and World reports surveyed many different ratings and came up with this:
As for reliability, the new GC ranked "OK" but was number 11 out of 22 vehicles in its class. (Some have issues others say they never have a problem.)
As for the new RDX:
Rankings & Research
The 2020 Acura RDX's #1 ranking is based on its score within the Luxury Compact SUVs category. Currently the Acura RDX has a score of 8.6 out of 10, which is based on our evaluation of 32 pieces of research and data elements using various sources.
Some just love anything Jeep....and Fiat/Chrysler loves you people!
What did you drive before the RDX? I thought the RDX would feel "more normal" because it would be more like the TSX, but I found the infotainment system frustrating and there were several creaks and groans. It was an advance.
I came from a 335 when I got the TSX for the reliability. When my first TSX got injured very badly, I turned around and bought another. I've had this one now almost 7 years - the longest I've ever owned a car. I had a love/hate relationship with the BMW and decided I'd never own another BMW unless I moved back to Germany. The 335 to tSX wagon transition seemed more "normal" in the test drive than the TSX to RDX - something I wasn't expecting.
I wonder about something like a Forrester or Outback. Would that be a candidate?
Don't they all have CVTs now? Like the DAF I had in the 70's?
I'm too right wing for an Outback and the Forrester is a bit to low rent for me. I even drove a RAV4. That was really low rent. The interiors of both was a bit Rubbermaid'ish
Good suggestions though. I was contemplating those too. The Lexus NX/RX are too much like a minivan.
All cars drive on the right side, at least in this country. Not sure what makes Subaru a car for lefties other than stereotypes. I’m pretty sure that owning an Outback won’t make you gay, if that’s what you’re worried about. But yeah, if that’s your mindset, probably best to get a GC; it’s the better car for pissing off environmentalists and for wearing your “don’t tread on me” and “from my cold, dead hands” stickers. ‘Murcia, fuck yeah.
Last edited by Waetherman; 01-31-2020 at 03:54 AM.
Here's my dilemma - it looks like I'll be going back to a job that requires me to be available 24/7 regardless of weather and road conditions. When I did it back in 2001, I was driving my Yukon, but my TSX wagon won't cut it when weather gets really iffy. The drive is about 50 miles one way and the last 4 miles are up a mounting - often in pea soup fog. After the Yukon, I had RX300 as a backup (I hate that car for a multitude of reasons) and even with the appropriate tires, it never did well in snow and ice. I'm not sure that a RDX/MDX would do any better.
So, do I get a 4Runner as the "really bad weather" car and drive my TSX most of the time, do I get a Grand Cherokee (and hope it doesn't break) as a daily driver - or a RDX/MDX and hope the tires will do their job before the plows get there?
The new Subaru Outback XT looks to be a good comprise in all areas between 4Runner and an RDX. I'd expect the performance to be much closer to the RDX than the truck (has to be the XT, non XT Subies are slow a.f.) but more suited to your driving conditions.
Thank you for your insight. Do you find a comfort difference between the Overland and the Trailhawk?
Yes and no. There is absolutely no difference in comfort between the Overland and Trailhawk, depending upon which Overland you choose. What I mean is this---if you get an Overland with the off-road package (I'm talking about the full package, identical to the Trailhawk equipment), you'll get the 18" Kevlar Goodyear tires that come standard on the Trailhawk. It will feel exactly like a Trailhawk, which is expected because both vehicles will be identical as far as the drivetrain, including the suspension and wheels & tires. But if you get an Overland with the standard 20" wheel & tire package, it will ride noticeably more comfortably than a Trailhawk. Believe it or not, those 20" tires are a big improvement in ride comfort compared to the 18" tires. I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but it's completely true. I think it's because the 18" Kevlar tires are more off-road oriented and they are definitely heavier (I weighed them). When I traded in my Overland for the Trailhawk, I noticed the difference in ride quality immediately. I love the Trailhawk, but the 18" wheels weren't exactly my favorite, so I ended up putting 20" wheels & tires on it (I purchased the OEM Goodyear Forteras that came on my Overland) and my Trailhawk suddenly felt exactly like my Overland, same level of comfort. If I was going to buy an Overland, I'd probably just get the QDII 4wd system and not worry about getting the full off-road package. That way I'd have the 20" wheels & tires with the top 4wd system. But it's very hard to find an Overland with QDII on a dealer's lot. Almost all of them will be QTII, which is still a good system, but not the best one.
The new Overlands have the optional OffRoad package that includes most of TH stuff. I was looking at a TH as well. I drove both the TH (5.7) and the Summit (3.6) and although the Summit had a nicer interior although it had that diamond pattern upgrade that I can't say I liked. The dealer doesn't have an Overland so I'd like to know if it is worth finding one to compare. The TH I'm looking at has the ACC package (including that goofy self parking), the 5.7 and the HIDs along with the all leather seats (instead of the suede).
Summit, Overland, and Trailhawk all come with standard air suspension. So they all have the same exact ride quality. Like I mentioned, any difference will be due to the tires. I'd highly recommend the HID headlights. All three of my Grand Cherokees had HIDs because the standard projector incandescent headlights are terrible. I also have the ACC and I recommend that and all the tech stuff too. I only tried the self parking once just to try it. I have no interest in ever using it, although it did a good job at parallel parking and also backing into a normal parking spot. One other thing to consider is that the Trailhawk comes with more highly bolstered seats, which I really like. They are so much more supportive than the seats in the Overland and Summit. The Trailhawk seats are actually the same seats from the Trackhawk.
The RDX drove very nicely and - of the three - was clearly the most comfortable (perhaps because it was more like my TSX in feel) but the fit and finish was a bit disappointing and the touchpad certainly needs some practice. Somehow it felt a bit like FWD. I could squeal the front tires for a split second on wet pavement (not intentionally). If I had a choice of these three, then the RDX would be it.
A few days ago I drove a Trailhawk (5.7). Unfortunately it was at night, in rush hour with two salespeople in the car. It drove very nicely, seemed very comfortable and had plenty of uumph (obviously). The engine rivaled the smoothness of the GX.
Yesterday I drove the Summit (3.6). It somehow seemed a bit more comfortable than I remembered the TH to be. that could have easily been because of the different test drives and the couple of days in between. Was I imagining the difference? On paper (and in my wallet), I'd prefer the TH (or the Overland with the Off Road package).
Thoughts?
The Grand Cherokee definitely rides better and has a more refined feeling than the RDX. I'm not bashing the RDX at all, but the Jeep is just a step up in terms of refinement. The 4Runner, like you mentioned, feels like a mess on the road. Crazy nose dive under semi-hard braking, sloppy handling, super mushy suspension, etc. It feels older than it is (and it's very old!) The RDX reminds me more of a sporty car, with a sticker suspension and a not-always-smooth transmission.
Yes and no. There is absolutely no difference in comfort between the Overland and Trailhawk, depending upon which Overland you choose. What I mean is this---if you get an Overland with the off-road package (I'm talking about the full package, identical to the Trailhawk equipment), you'll get the 18" Kevlar Goodyear tires that come standard on the Trailhawk. It will feel exactly like a Trailhawk, which is expected because both vehicles will be identical as far as the drivetrain, including the suspension and wheels & tires. But if you get an Overland with the standard 20" wheel & tire package, it will ride noticeably more comfortably than a Trailhawk. Believe it or not, those 20" tires are a big improvement in ride comfort compared to the 18" tires. I know that goes against conventional wisdom, but it's completely true. I think it's because the 18" Kevlar tires are more off-road oriented and they are definitely heavier (I weighed them). When I traded in my Overland for the Trailhawk, I noticed the difference in ride quality immediately. I love the Trailhawk, but the 18" wheels weren't exactly my favorite, so I ended up putting 20" wheels & tires on it (I purchased the OEM Goodyear Forteras that came on my Overland) and my Trailhawk suddenly felt exactly like my Overland, same level of comfort. If I was going to buy an Overland, I'd probably just get the QDII 4wd system and not worry about getting the full off-road package. That way I'd have the 20" wheels & tires with the top 4wd system. But it's very hard to find an Overland with QDII on a dealer's lot. Almost all of them will be QTII, which is still a good system, but not the best one.
Summit, Overland, and Trailhawk all come with standard air suspension. So they all have the same exact ride quality. Like I mentioned, any difference will be due to the tires. I'd highly recommend the HID headlights. All three of my Grand Cherokees had HIDs because the standard projector incandescent headlights are terrible. I also have the ACC and I recommend that and all the tech stuff too. I only tried the self parking once just to try it. I have no interest in ever using it, although it did a good job at parallel parking and also backing into a normal parking spot. One other thing to consider is that the Trailhawk comes with more highly bolstered seats, which I really like. They are so much more supportive than the seats in the Overland and Summit. The Trailhawk seats are actually the same seats from the Trackhawk.
The Grand Cherokee definitely rides better and has a more refined feeling than the RDX. I'm not bashing the RDX at all, but the Jeep is just a step up in terms of refinement. The 4Runner, like you mentioned, feels like a mess on the road. Crazy nose dive under semi-hard braking, sloppy handling, super mushy suspension, etc. It feels older than it is (and it's very old!) The RDX reminds me more of a sporty car, with a sticker suspension and a not-always-smooth transmission.
Wow. Lots of good information. I'm looking at a TH with the HIDs, the 5.7 and the ACC. I suspect the parking thing is the earlier version from Mercedes so, while it works, is slow. I generally run two sets of tires a smaller wheel with more sidewall for the winter with the appropriate rubber and a larger wheel for summer use, so either way I'll have to buy a second set of wheels - what wheels are on the white TH in the photos? It also looks like you took the black hood decal off. How difficult was it to get that off? I also found the TH seats to be quite comfortable.
Is there anything on the Overland that the TH doesn't have?
Wow. Lots of good information. I'm looking at a TH with the HIDs, the 5.7 and the ACC. I suspect the parking thing is the earlier version from Mercedes so, while it works, is slow. I generally run two sets of tires a smaller wheel with more sidewall for the winter with the appropriate rubber and a larger wheel for summer use, so either way I'll have to buy a second set of wheels - what wheels are on the white TH in the photos? It also looks like you took the black hood decal off. How difficult was it to get that off? I also found the TH seats to be quite comfortable.
Is there anything on the Overland that the TH doesn't have?
Thanks again, most helpful.
The wheels are 20" Black Rhino Mozambique. The hood decal peels off easily if you leave the vehicle sitting out in the sun on a hot day. Otherwise, you'll need a heat gun or a decently powerful hair dryer. I'm not sure if the Overland has anything that you can't get on the Trailhawk. I know the Overland models are pretty loaded up with equipment already. You really can't go wrong with either one. The main reasons I switch from Overland to Trailhawk was because of the seats and the QDII 4wd system.
The wheels are 20" Black Rhino Mozambique. The hood decal peels off easily if you leave the vehicle sitting out in the sun on a hot day. Otherwise, you'll need a heat gun or a decently powerful hair dryer. I'm not sure if the Overland has anything that you can't get on the Trailhawk. I know the Overland models are pretty loaded up with equipment already. You really can't go wrong with either one. The main reasons I switch from Overland to Trailhawk was because of the seats and the QDII 4wd system.
Thanks. I think you're my role model (or is that roll model since it is car related) as I'm looking at a white TH too.
Those wheels are great. Are they hubcentric with the right offset or does one require centering rings?
Thanks. I think you're my role model (or is that roll model since it is car related) as I'm looking at a white TH too.
Those wheels are great. Are they hubcentric with the right offset or does one require centering rings?
Yes, hubcentric. They bolt right on perfectly like they are OEM. The offset is more aggressive than the original wheels, which gives the vehicle a nicer stance without being obnoxious looking.
Good to hear. Thanks. I guess they use the same lug nuts too. It is amazing how much better the car looks without that black decal on the hood. I can't imagine that one has many reflections coming off the hood, so I imagine it is more of a design/cosmetic feature.
Good to hear. Thanks. I guess they use the same lug nuts too. It is amazing how much better the car looks without that black decal on the hood. I can't imagine that one has many reflections coming off the hood, so I imagine it is more of a design/cosmetic feature.
Yeah, I don't like the hood decal. Other people love it, but I just think it's goofy looking. They do claim it's useful for driving off-road. The theory is that at extremely angles, the refection off the hood can be blinding when you're trying to see the ground over the edge of the hood, like if you were cresting a hill and about to head down the other side. Maybe it could be useful in that scenario, but in all honesty I think it's probably mostly useless. Besides, I don't really spend time offroading my Jeep. I really wanted the Trailhawk's capabilities for extreme weather (snow) that I encounter in upstate New York. We have a cabin in the woods that is about a mile uphill on a private, unmaintained road close to Syracuse. It's normally covered in snow all winter long. The only SUVs that I've owned that could consistently make it to the cabin are the 4Runner and the Grand Cherokee. Many other SUVs owned by family and friends just can manage to get up there when snow is on the ground. Last year, two of my cousins could make it up, one with a Trailblazer and the other with an Explorer. You really need something capable to get up there.
Yeah, I don't like the hood decal. Other people love it, but I just think it's goofy looking. They do claim it's useful for driving off-road. The theory is that at extremely angles, the refection off the hood can be blinding when you're trying to see the ground over the edge of the hood, like if you were cresting a hill and about to head down the other side. Maybe it could be useful in that scenario, but in all honesty I think it's probably mostly useless. Besides, I don't really spend time offroading my Jeep. I really wanted the Trailhawk's capabilities for extreme weather (snow) that I encounter in upstate New York. We have a cabin in the woods that is about a mile uphill on a private, unmaintained road close to Syracuse. It's normally covered in snow all winter long. The only SUVs that I've owned that could consistently make it to the cabin are the 4Runner and the Grand Cherokee. Many other SUVs owned by family and friends just can manage to get up there when snow is on the ground. Last year, two of my cousins could make it up, one with a Trailblazer and the other with an Explorer. You really need something capable to get up there.
Wow, autocorrect mangled that one and I can't edit it anymore. Anyway, I meant to say that those other SUVs COULDN'T make it up. BTW, how stupid us it that you can't edit your own post unless you edit it right after you post it....
Yeah, I don't like the hood decal. Other people love it, but I just think it's goofy looking. They do claim it's useful for driving off-road. The theory is that at extremely angles, the refection off the hood can be blinding when you're trying to see the ground over the edge of the hood, like if you were cresting a hill and about to head down the other side. Maybe it could be useful in that scenario, but in all honesty I think it's probably mostly useless. Besides, I don't really spend time offroading my Jeep. I really wanted the Trailhawk's capabilities for extreme weather (snow) that I encounter in upstate New York. We have a cabin in the woods that is about a mile uphill on a private, unmaintained road close to Syracuse. It's normally covered in snow all winter long. The only SUVs that I've owned that could consistently make it to the cabin are the 4Runner and the Grand Cherokee. Many other SUVs owned by family and friends just can manage to get up there when snow is on the ground. Last year, two of my cousins could make it up, one with a Trailblazer and the other with an Explorer. You really need something capable to get up there.
Yep, that's the same exact reason I'm looking too. I need all weather/ all road capability and the 4R is just a bit too crude on-road.
Yes, the no-editing thing is odd. I think this is the ONLY forum that doesn't let a poster edit after 10 minutes or so. I know of a couple forums that don't let you edit your first 10 or 20 posts but lets you thereafter.
Yes, the no-editing thing is odd. I think this is the ONLY forum that doesn't let a poster edit after 10 minutes or so. I know of a couple forums that don't let you edit your first 10 or 20 posts but lets you thereafter.
From what I hear... The editing window was much shorter a few years ago... Like 5 minutes... It's 15 minutes now, if I'm correct...
I think the "no edit" thing is so that we gotta "keep it real"! No big talk and take it back later! You know... More of Majofo's side of the forum... You know... The dark side!
Since you mentioned Jeep (I share the sentiment about quality on them for a multitude of reasons and experience)...I'm assuming you're willing to go American.
and you seem to keep comparing everything to your Yukon. Why reinvent the wheel? Why isn't a lightly used Tahoe/Yukon in your search...they depreciate quickly
so you can get a steal and they are great for highway AND climbing shit. We just bought a 15 Burban and I got 21 mpg on the way to work, to boot. I've definitely
become a GM fanboi in the last few years.
Since you mentioned Jeep (I share the sentiment about quality on them for a multitude of reasons and experience)...I'm assuming you're willing to go American.
and you seem to keep comparing everything to your Yukon. Why reinvent the wheel? Why isn't a lightly used Tahoe/Yukon in your search...they depreciate quickly
so you can get a steal and they are great for highway AND climbing shit. We just bought a 15 Burban and I got 21 mpg on the way to work, to boot. I've definitely
become a GM fanboi in the last few years.
Whaaaat? Jeep is American????? Yes, I might have to swing by a Chevy or GMC dealer. I had a Suburban periodically at work a few years ago (in requisite "Washington DC black") and that thing just drove huge but maybe I didn't drive it enough - they normally gave me one of the Volts because my office was one of the few that would run up miles and they wanted to keep the gas in the Volts fresh.
I had an 04 Yukon XL...put some new shocks on it and LOVED the ride...smooth for road trips a solid 16 mpg...but robust enough to ride over shit. Any part was $50 AC Delco from amazon to fix stuff...
I just love them...
Our 15 Burban has magnetic ride and it's much more firm...not as cushy but also a much sportier feel for something this heavy...something to be said for the torque of a V8 either way...
Give it a whirl...it might be the answer.
I swear I kept reading your first few posts where you were lamenting on the Yukon and how great it was and kept thinking...I wonder
if there's a reason it's not on his list...sounds like he loved it.
Yukon....too big and just doesn't have the capability of a Grand Cherokee. That's my particular reasons for not wanting one, but obviously ceb's views may differ. Midsize SUVs are perfect--not too big and not too small. I think I'd probably have a Land Rover (either Range Rover or Range Rover Sport) if I didn't have the Grand Cherokee to choose from. Higher price point for sure, but very similar overall to the Grand Cherokee. And I'm not afraid of those poor reliability ratings, so that really wouldn't be a factor for me.
Since you mentioned Jeep (I share the sentiment about quality on them for a multitude of reasons and experience)...I'm assuming you're willing to go American.
and you seem to keep comparing everything to your Yukon. Why reinvent the wheel? Why isn't a lightly used Tahoe/Yukon in your search...they depreciate quickly
so you can get a steal and they are great for highway AND climbing shit. We just bought a 15 Burban and I got 21 mpg on the way to work, to boot. I've definitely
become a GM fanboi in the last few years.
Yukon....too big and just doesn't have the capability of a Grand Cherokee. That's my particular reasons for not wanting one, but obviously ceb's views may differ. Midsize SUVs are perfect--not too big and not too small. I think I'd probably have a Land Rover (either Range Rover or Range Rover Sport) if I didn't have the Grand Cherokee to choose from. Higher price point for sure, but very similar overall to the Grand Cherokee. And I'm not afraid of those poor reliability ratings, so that really wouldn't be a factor for me.
It's funny you say that, when the current generation came out for 2011 many publications were calling it the "American Range Rover" and I definitely agree in a lot of ways. Things like the 4 corner air suspension, select terrain knob, leather dash and doors, real wood trim, serious off road capability...etc are all from the Land Rover play book. What other non luxury branded product is offering all that stuff? Literally nothing that I can think of (other than a durango of course, but that's kind of a cop out).
RDX10... Good point! I feel the Grand Cherokee is one of those "regular brand" luxury vehicles... Kind of like a GMC Denali, Nissan Maxima/Murano, Toyota Land Cruiser, Chrysler 300, VW CC... ECT...
I had an 04 Yukon XL...put some new shocks on it and LOVED the ride...smooth for road trips a solid 16 mpg...but robust enough to ride over shit. Any part was $50 AC Delco from amazon to fix stuff...
I just love them...
Our 15 Burban has magnetic ride and it's much more firm...not as cushy but also a much sportier feel for something this heavy...something to be said for the torque of a V8 either way...
Give it a whirl...it might be the answer.
I swear I kept reading your first few posts where you were lamenting on the Yukon and how great it was and kept thinking...I wonder
if there's a reason it's not on his list...sounds like he loved it.
You're right, I'll go look at them again. My Yukon (98) was comfortable and the barn doors were great. I put 30k miles a year on that thing. The office Suburban rode great. It also had hidden lights and that "woop woop" siren that parted traffic but I hated backing it into the parking garage although it was great in poor weather - I remember driving back 50+ miles in a snowstorm following a SOTU and it was rock solid even with me being a bit sleepy and listening to a book on tape - I'm getting too old for 20 hour days...
Yukon....too big and just doesn't have the capability of a Grand Cherokee. That's my particular reasons for not wanting one, but obviously ceb's views may differ. Midsize SUVs are perfect--not too big and not too small. I think I'd probably have a Land Rover (either Range Rover or Range Rover Sport) if I didn't have the Grand Cherokee to choose from. Higher price point for sure, but very similar overall to the Grand Cherokee. And I'm not afraid of those poor reliability ratings, so that really wouldn't be a factor for me.
I had a Disco as a loaner right when they first came out while I was in the UK. Driving down a bumpy lane, the tail light assembly fell out. It was a nice car for the times though. Those "starliner" windows were great.
Originally Posted by RDX10
It's funny you say that, when the current generation came out for 2011 many publications were calling it the "American Range Rover" and I definitely agree in a lot of ways. Things like the 4 corner air suspension, select terrain knob, leather dash and doors, real wood trim, serious off road capability...etc are all from the Land Rover play book. What other non luxury branded product is offering all that stuff? Literally nothing that I can think of (other than a durango of course, but that's kind of a cop out).
But then they also called the ford Granada/Mercury Monarch the "American Mercedes". I had one of those - my dad bought it as a "year old new car" from Military Car Sales. It had been sitting in Ghent at the port for a year and a half and was on fire sale. Not the worst car ever, but no Mercedes.
The GC is considerably smaller than the Tahoe/Yukon and has a smaller turning radius, but a year old Tahoe might be a better buy. I'll look at them this weekend, but I do have a Trailhawk I have an eye on.
01-18-2020 | 10:24 AM
Yes, I might have to swing by a Chevy or GMC dealer. I had a Suburban periodically at work a few years ago (in requisite "Washington DC black") and that thing just drove huge but maybe I didn't drive it enough - they normally gave me one of the Volts because my office was one of the few that would run up miles and they wanted to keep the gas in the Volts fresh.
