The next gen Jeep Cherokee

[Bili]

Let's say that I do know nothing about this vehicle but I believe it should unveiled during the current UAW agreement.

In my opinion this product will leave CUSW platform. Feel free to post you opinion if you disagree.

I believe it will end up on Small Wide or Giorgio platform.
Of course Small Wide should be thoroughly updated and it means no 6 cylinder engine option.
Giorgio could mean turbo 6 but also air suspension as an option but also most likely no small 1.3 or 1.5 liter turbo engine as a base engine so it should start with a (very) high price tag.

For me PSA platforms doesn't sound as a plausible solution. No mechanical AWD, no 2.0 gasoline engines and they are not US compliant in its current form.

 

[TripleT]

Platforms don't mean anything anymore... As for Architecture... should be Rear-Wheel engine arrangement using the CUSW build points

 

[Chrismopar]

Let's say that I do know nothing about this vehicle but I believe it should unveiled during the current UAW agreement.

In my opinion this product will leave CUSW platform. Feel free to post you opinion if you disagree.

I believe it will end up on Small Wide or Giorgio platform.
Of course Small Wide should be thoroughly updated and it means no 6 cylinder engine option.
Giorgio could mean turbo 6 but also air suspension as an option but also most likely no small 1.3 or 1.5 liter turbo engine as a base engine so it should start with a (very) high price tag.

For me PSA platforms doesn't sound as a plausible solution. No mechanical AWD, no 2.0 gasoline engines and they are not US compliant in its current form.

Let's say that I do know nothing about this vehicle but I believe it should unveiled during the current UAW agreement.

In my opinion this product will leave CUSW platform. Feel free to post you opinion if you disagree.

I believe it will end up on Small Wide or Giorgio platform.
Of course Small Wide should be thoroughly updated and it means no 6 cylinder engine option.
Giorgio could mean turbo 6 but also air suspension as an option but also most likely no small 1.3 or 1.5 liter turbo engine as a base engine so it should start with a (very) high price tag.

For me PSA platforms doesn't sound as a plausible solution. No mechanical AWD, no 2.0 gasoline engines and they are not US compliant in its current form.

I could be wrong, but I see no reason a PSA platform could not be modified to except mechanical AWD with a FCA 1.3T or 1.5T. One of the major advantages of the merger is the sharing of tech and components, which means best of both when aplible.

 

[pumadog]

Agree, could be any sort of evolution. When is it due?

 

[AlexB]

My formal vote is for Giorgio, making it a little bigger and officially 'midsize'' product with significantly higher prices. Right now current Cherokee is an odd size that even Mike Manley have called ''midsize'', and at other times called small. It isn't as nimble or value of Equinox, nor the package of the RAV4.
However my bet on what FCA-PSA WILL LIKELY DO is redesign the Cherokee, but on an all-new FWD/AWD underpinnings.
I don't think they will just simply take PSA's underpinnings because:
1: Due to E.U regs in 2022, FCA HAS TO Make a series of new product in Europe to avoid fines & penalties therefore the timetable don't fit for Merger product.
2: PSA was in a hurry to get Opel-Vauxhall models off GM's IP for the factors of not owning the designs in addition to cost, scale, and efficiency(FCA-PSA won't be done integrating Opel until 2022).
3: Unsure if PSA underpinnings meet U.S. standards hence Carlos kept pushing out the U.S. return date which is now unlikely all together.

 

[Deckard Cain]

IMO Giorgio makes the most sense. But this means that the Grand Cherokee would have to be bigger than the current generation to allow the Cherokee to also be slightly bigger.

 

[Bili]

Grand Cherokee will be bigger. No doubt about it. Just look at new generation Merc GL/MLE or even BMW X5.

But in my opinion similar size as Stelvio but just more boxy will do just fine.
In that case it's not CR-V or RAV4 competitor. But IMO it's not in its current form.

@AlexB
Are you asking for direct Honda and Toyota competitor? I'm not sure that Jeep brand can play in that field. To my eyes both Honda and Toyota looks more like a wagons with long rear overhang. As we know Jeep can't have long rear overhang. At last not on FWD platform because it means not one but two long overhangs.
So in my opinion such product could be on Small Wide and under Chrysler brand.
Of course Jeep could use Small Wide but... Nice improvements for Small Wide will come out with Tonale. It will be interesting to see it.

@TripleT
AFAIK Dodge or SRT engineers had task to build RWD car from CUSW. Results weren't good enough and it was discarded.
That's one of the reasons why Giorgio was born.

 

[patfromigh]

This is just my opinion and wishes. The Cherokee should go to rear drive. The Compass can handle the lower end of the market. If the Compass grows a little to move closer to the present Cherokee's spot, the Renegade can cover the smaller size segment.

The Chrysler brand can offer a better replacement for the front drive Cherokee. A front drive based vehicle with more rear overhang. If the Cherokee becomes a rear drive based vehicle, then a front drive based Chrysler the same size wouldn't compete.

 

[Deckard Cain]

To compete against Honda and Toyota FCA should offer Dodge or Chrysler versions of the Jeep SUVs without everything that is usually required for a Jeep brand model to support offroad.
IMO, a Dodge SUV would be more successful than a Chrysler SUV. If the PSA philosophy is implemented in the US, maybe they'll launch both.

 

[Bili]

@Deckard Cain

You think? The last call will be from John Elkann. It's always like that.

Besides I don't see how a performance brand, American performance brands, like Dodge can just offer Chrysler twin. Chrysler is a people mover brand. Yes, I know that some are living in a world where Chrysler is a luxury brand while Dodge is a people mover but thankfully that's not true.

 

[Deckard Cain]

The fact that you offer, for example, a Dodge midsize SUV and a Chrysler midsize SUV does not imply that they will handle the same or be configured in the same way.
There's no lack of examples of cars that share platform/components that handle and have completely different market positioning.

Also, even if Dodge is the "performance brand" they need more models and volume to capitalize on the effect that their halo models have on the market.

 

[UN4GTBL]

6 cylinder, RWD and more cargo room please.

 

[TripleT]

Grand Cherokee will be bigger. No doubt about it. Just look at new generation Merc GL/MLE or even BMW X5.


@TripleT
AFAIK Dodge or SRT engineers had task to build RWD car from CUSW. Results weren't good enough and it was discarded.
That's one of the reasons why Giorgio was born.

Build point sir... Giorgio and CUSW are build points. They can build a proper rwd vehicle on any set of build points using the modern Architectures. Giorgio is already obsolete. It just the name they give stuff to talk about the current state of design language. It would be best if the plant didn't have to replace it carriers so they can do a running change over so they do not have to do a Capacity shuffle as they are sort of running out of plants to shuffle to.

 

[TripleT]

6 cylinder, RWD and more cargo room please.

ahhhhh that sort complicating set of requirement unless the grow upward and turning the engine would negatively effect the packaging.

 

[AlfaCuda]

Actually if the US part of FCA wasn't capacity constrained they could cover a fuller range of SUVs utilizing the D and C brands to full effect. Similar to the way VAG does.