A few days ago, I got to see a 2015 Renegade Trailhawk in the flesh and had a chance to really look it over. Unfortunately, I did not get to drive it. Here are my thoughts (based on having over 4 decades of 4 wheeling experience, a fair amount of it on really challenging trails):
FC does appear to have gotten the ergonomics right on the Renegade--something that Jeep has seldom managed to do very well in the past (I know, I've owned several Jeep products). The interior is comfortable and the controls seem logical. I don't give a darn about all the "Easter Eggs"--they do nothing to enhance the performance of the vehicle.
For the most part, the underbody on the Trailhawk is fairly well protected and ground clearance is adequate, but only adequate. Why didn't Jeep make the tire size on the Renegade a standard size? A big dumb mistake. Underhood, the access is pretty good to everything that an owner would need to regularly check.
I did not get to drive the Trailhawk, much less take one on a really obnoxious trail, but I could conclude some things from looking at the vehicle and its specs, based on my lots of years of 4-wheeling experience. As a "soft-roader" the Trailhawk will likely do fairly well. It should also perform pretty well as a "snow vehicle" for those wanting a vehicle for primarily that duty.
For use on medium difficulty or high difficulty trails, I'm much less optimistic. The Trailhawk's big shortcoming there is likely to be the old "torque vs. gearing" dilemma. Simply stated, the higher speed (lower ratio) gearing the vehicle has, the more low-RPM torque the engine has to provide to overcome the gearing deficiency for slow-speed crawling in severe trail use. Jeep brags that the Trailhawk sports a "crawl ratio" of around 20:1 in first gear--that would be adequate in a high-torque-at-low RPM V8 engine/automatic transmission equipped 4WD, but the Jeep's 2.4L inline 4 only develops 175 lbs./ft. of torque, and most of that only at high RPM. Worse yet, the reverse crawl ratio on the Trailhawk is only 16.5:1--rule here is that the reverse crawl ratio should be as low or lower speed than the forward crawl ratio. Not so with the Trailhawk.
Compare that with my Jeep Cherokee that, by the way, weights just about the same as the Trailhawk. My Cherokee has a first gear low-range crawl ratio of around 27.0:1, BUT it has a 4.0 liter inline 6 that develops 225 lbs./ft. of torque, and with much of that just off of idle. Go to a Wrangle Rubicon and the first gear low range crawl ratio is over 45:1 with an automatic transmission. Bottom line here: In my opinion, to be a really decent off-roader, the Renegade Trailhawk needs a crawl ratio of at least 30:1 and 40:1 would be better. For hard-core off road use, the lack of a lower crawl ratio will be the Renegade Trailhawk's biggest off-roading limitation. Making the diesel engine available in Europe an available option in the US would help a lot, as well. Turbodiesels develop most of their torque at lower RPM's, and that would help the off-road performance (and fuel economy) of the Renegade Trailhawk greatly.
Finally, the big unanswered question about the Renegade for me remains reliability and durability. Jeep has had issues with reliability for years--often in non-critical, but expensive to repair electrical system, engine control, transmission control, and emission control issues. Some posts on this forum indicate to me that Jeep is having issues with some of those same things on the Renegade.
I currently own two Jeeps. At this point, I'm unlikely to trade either to buy a Renegade Trailhawk, though I admit the Trailhawk would likely be more comfortable and enjoyable to drive on the highway than my current Jeeps. If Jeep refines a few things about the Renegade Trailhawk--lower trail gearing, diesel engine option, standard tire sizes, better reliability--well, then I might be interested.
PS--Don't believe Jeep's "Trail Rated" garbage. I own a "Trail Rated" 2005 Jeep Liberty CRD (turbodiesel). In its factory "Trail Rated" trim, it had less than 7" of minimum ground clearance, it had a soft and inadequate front suspension, and it lacked any skid plating to protect the undercarriage. It is now truly "Trail Rated," but it took my addition of skid plating , 3" suspension lift with heavy duty springs and shocks, and larger tires to get it there--over $3K of modifications to be exact. A 25 cent badge doesn't make a vehicle "Trail Rated," notwithstanding Jeep's hype about it.
FC does appear to have gotten the ergonomics right on the Renegade--something that Jeep has seldom managed to do very well in the past (I know, I've owned several Jeep products). The interior is comfortable and the controls seem logical. I don't give a darn about all the "Easter Eggs"--they do nothing to enhance the performance of the vehicle.
For the most part, the underbody on the Trailhawk is fairly well protected and ground clearance is adequate, but only adequate. Why didn't Jeep make the tire size on the Renegade a standard size? A big dumb mistake. Underhood, the access is pretty good to everything that an owner would need to regularly check.
I did not get to drive the Trailhawk, much less take one on a really obnoxious trail, but I could conclude some things from looking at the vehicle and its specs, based on my lots of years of 4-wheeling experience. As a "soft-roader" the Trailhawk will likely do fairly well. It should also perform pretty well as a "snow vehicle" for those wanting a vehicle for primarily that duty.
For use on medium difficulty or high difficulty trails, I'm much less optimistic. The Trailhawk's big shortcoming there is likely to be the old "torque vs. gearing" dilemma. Simply stated, the higher speed (lower ratio) gearing the vehicle has, the more low-RPM torque the engine has to provide to overcome the gearing deficiency for slow-speed crawling in severe trail use. Jeep brags that the Trailhawk sports a "crawl ratio" of around 20:1 in first gear--that would be adequate in a high-torque-at-low RPM V8 engine/automatic transmission equipped 4WD, but the Jeep's 2.4L inline 4 only develops 175 lbs./ft. of torque, and most of that only at high RPM. Worse yet, the reverse crawl ratio on the Trailhawk is only 16.5:1--rule here is that the reverse crawl ratio should be as low or lower speed than the forward crawl ratio. Not so with the Trailhawk.
Compare that with my Jeep Cherokee that, by the way, weights just about the same as the Trailhawk. My Cherokee has a first gear low-range crawl ratio of around 27.0:1, BUT it has a 4.0 liter inline 6 that develops 225 lbs./ft. of torque, and with much of that just off of idle. Go to a Wrangle Rubicon and the first gear low range crawl ratio is over 45:1 with an automatic transmission. Bottom line here: In my opinion, to be a really decent off-roader, the Renegade Trailhawk needs a crawl ratio of at least 30:1 and 40:1 would be better. For hard-core off road use, the lack of a lower crawl ratio will be the Renegade Trailhawk's biggest off-roading limitation. Making the diesel engine available in Europe an available option in the US would help a lot, as well. Turbodiesels develop most of their torque at lower RPM's, and that would help the off-road performance (and fuel economy) of the Renegade Trailhawk greatly.
Finally, the big unanswered question about the Renegade for me remains reliability and durability. Jeep has had issues with reliability for years--often in non-critical, but expensive to repair electrical system, engine control, transmission control, and emission control issues. Some posts on this forum indicate to me that Jeep is having issues with some of those same things on the Renegade.
I currently own two Jeeps. At this point, I'm unlikely to trade either to buy a Renegade Trailhawk, though I admit the Trailhawk would likely be more comfortable and enjoyable to drive on the highway than my current Jeeps. If Jeep refines a few things about the Renegade Trailhawk--lower trail gearing, diesel engine option, standard tire sizes, better reliability--well, then I might be interested.
PS--Don't believe Jeep's "Trail Rated" garbage. I own a "Trail Rated" 2005 Jeep Liberty CRD (turbodiesel). In its factory "Trail Rated" trim, it had less than 7" of minimum ground clearance, it had a soft and inadequate front suspension, and it lacked any skid plating to protect the undercarriage. It is now truly "Trail Rated," but it took my addition of skid plating , 3" suspension lift with heavy duty springs and shocks, and larger tires to get it there--over $3K of modifications to be exact. A 25 cent badge doesn't make a vehicle "Trail Rated," notwithstanding Jeep's hype about it.