and since I'm a bit of a picture whore...
Blacked out the badges and threw on some Escalade 22's
and boy am I in love with this thing

 

Great pictures. Maybe I need to stop by the dealership tomorrow. The office Suburban was the last model (without the chrome on the windowframe.

What's a decent forum?

 

Yes, if you compare a Summit or even an Overland trim Grand Cherokee feature by feature with a Land Rover, they match up pretty much perfectly. I mean, you even get stuff like a full leather dash with contrast stitching and the two-row panoramic glass roof. All the electronic features as well. I think they must have targeted Range Rover when they developed the GC.

 

That thing is a boat! I guess it's cool if you need to transport a baseball team around, but it's just far too big for anything I'd need. I will never own any "full-size" vehicle, whether it's a car, truck, or SUV. I'd actually prefer something a little smaller than midsize, but I've come to realize that midsize is what works best for just about anything I need to do. The other day I picked up a few 2x4s from Home Depot. At 8' long they fit inside perfectly (barely) and allowed me to close the rear hatch. You can't pull that off in a compact SUV, so midsize is the smallest I'm willing to go. You also get better driving dynamics in a smaller vehicle, so again, the midsize SUVs tend to be the best overall compromise.Just my $.02

 

Yes, the GC was developed under Mercedes and MB has always had that ongoing "keeping up with the Jones' with RR as far as SUVs are concerned. The GC was their attempt to out RR the RR.

 

I know, the WK & WK2 is on a modified ML platform. Back in the Daimler Chrysler days, I believe it was the very first shared platform vehicle. I know that the Jeep has a strengthen unibody version of the chassis. I forget the terminology, but they called is something like a ladder frame unibody, or uniframe for short. Something like that anyway. They definitely did a great job matching all the luxury and all the capability of the Range Rover.

 

So that is Suburban. the Tahoe is about 20 inches shorter, but even the Tahoe is over 14 inches longer than the GC. I thought that sounded a bit large, so I looked up the dimensions of my 98 Yukon. It was 188 inches, so about 2 inches shorter than the GC.
I suspect that the Tahoe will drive too big - maybe not as big as the Suburban, but we'll see tomorrow.

Thanks for everyone's input. I truly appreciate it.

 

This one is good:
https://www.tahoeyukonforum.com/

We have 4 kids between the two of us (think Brady Bunch)
So we need the space for road trips and camping...this was the upgrade from a minivan that I had to pry the keys out of her hand for.
The ability to go offroad and camping and daily commute while getting over 20mpg was enough to convince us to sell her Odyssey and
the 97 Wangler.

It is large though...I think it's 121 cubic feet inside with seats down.

FWIW, it doesn't "drive" big...if that makes sense...and the steering and handling with the mag ride make it a lot more engaging than you'd think.
Plus...the ride is fucking superb. Did you know that the Suburban is the longest running model in the world? Name hasn't changed since 1934.

 

Definitely! Especially when you consider a summit model with the full leather package is like 70k, the RR sport starts at 80k here in Canada. I think they did an incredible job with it. I can't wait to see the next generation GC due any time this year. It should be incredible.

 

Yeah, I hope they don't screw it up. The current generation, being pretty old already, is definitely a good looking SUV. Maybe I'm biased because I own one, but I think it's by far the best looking Grand Cherokee ever.

 

I don't own one but I definitely agree, best GC by far. I'm pretty sure they'll play it safe with the redesign. I expect an interior similar to the new Ram with the vertical screen and a digital dash and the outside should stay relatively similar.

My one question is what are they doing with the platform? Is it still going to be the one dating back to 2005 Mercedes or are they using the Alfa Romeo or Maserati platform as rumored.

 

It's supposed to be built on a modified Alfa Romeo chassis, based off the Stelvio. I guess we will have to wait and see if that's true. Either way, I'm quite sure they'll strengthen it with their "uniframe" design as they have always done in the past.

 

I spent a bit of time in a 2019 yesterday and was mostly impressed. You're right, it drives much smaller and is huge inside. The ride is very pleasant and controlled. Decent power and drives very nicely. Pricing on recent used models is ridiculously good.

Unfortunately, there is one huge downside that makes me pause - all that interior room comes with a increased width. That increased width and height makes parking in parking garages difficult. The increased turning diameter doesn't help either.

 

Considering what you were initially considering as your options, the fact that this thing is still a contender speaks volumes.
Glad you gave it a shot...
wide, it is...I like the mirror fold option which does help with people getting by it in parking lots...
Oddly, I found the turning radius actually really acceptable in comparison to my F150 work truck...
I recall noting the first night we drove it home that it was pretty tight considering it was longer than teh titanic.

 

I've too found the turning radius on most newer vehicles are getting better. Every 2016+ vehicle we've rented has had a decent turning radius and the best, by far, being a 2018 Honda Odyssey of all things.

Makes a U turn in a 3G TL feel like a limousine...

 

Yeah, I've never understood why Japanese vehicles had a such a huge turning radius when the Germans often have a much smaller turning radius. The TL had a 39.6 ft turning diameter - the Mercedes E class had a 34.5 ft turning diameter

 

I've never driven a Benz. No... I take that back... Drove a 2017-ish E350 a few weeks ago at work... It did have a nice turn radius come to think of it.

LOL at a huge turning radius. My TL was a total B to park in a tight spot.

I also find an Acura turning radius is usually way wider than a comparable Honda for some reason. I've heard the same about Lexus and Toyota too.

 

The Audi is tight for sure...
you can see it when you cut the wheel all the way, it pivots and cambers out

 

FWD/transverse engine layout vs RWD/longitudinal layout? Can't have the front wheels cutting into the drivetrain.

My lawn tractor turns pretty tight, but the engine is above the front wheels. ( And no pesky front driveshafts to interfere ).

 

My mom has that Lexus RX300 (2002) that I despise - not because it is a bad car, but because of that stupid turning radius - advertised at 20.5ft, but measured by reviewers closer to 22ft (so 44ft vs the Mercedes 34.5 or the RDX's 38.5 turning diameter)

 

Audi/VW has a sideways engine and FWD/AWD with a tight turning radius, so that can't be it.

 

Depends which Audi/VW you're talking about. Some have sideways engines and fwd/awd, others are longitudinal and fwd/awd.

 

I always liked the RX300... For some reason...

I remember a few years ago we had a member here that had a mom that refused to give up her RX300 because she didn't like the newer Lexus RX's and wouldn't drive anything but a Lexus RX... And not a new one... So stubborn mom was stuck in her RX300.

Your post made me think of that for some reason...

 

Yup. Mine has a longitudinal engine (front to back, not sideways or transverse) and has a RWD-biased quattro AWD system. IMO, it's the best way to do AWD and feels more like a RWD as far as the driving dynamics.

 

My S4 has a decent turning radius, feels a little heavy at full lock but it handles beautifully...
I think I'm rear bias and longitudinal as well. No sport diff, either.

 

Take, for example the 2019 Passat (36 ft diameter) and the 2019 Accord (38 ft diameter). Both have sideways engines and FWD. 2 feet makes a big difference.

Although most Audi's sold in the US are quattro (AWD), the majority of Audis sold in the Fatherland are FWD and quattro makes the car feel a bit rear biased.