[PAK325]

We just bought a Cherokee for my wife last week, but I've been eyeing the Renegade for myself since the Geneva event in March.

The 2.4 in the (much heavier) Cherokee was grossly under-powered and we went with the 3.2L V6. What can be reasonably expected from the 2.4L in the Renegade which should scale in at 1000 lbs less?

I'm not expecting a Hemi, but I do want a vehicle capable of aggressive manuvering when it is warranted.

 

[Rivmage]

We just bought a Cherokee for my wife last week, but I've been eyeing the Renegade for myself since the Geneva event in March.

The 2.4 in the (much heavier) Cherokee was grossly under-powered and we went with the 3.2L V6. What can be reasonably expected from the 2.4L in the Renegade which should scale in at 1000 lbs less?

I'm not expecting a Hemi, but I do want a vehicle capable of aggressive manuvering when it is warranted.

Both the Dodge Dart and Chrysler 200 have the 2.4L and weight about the same as the Renegade. They aren't fast cars but, they are able to get up and go as needed. Test drive it and see for yourself, everyone has a different ideal power and speed level.

Scott

 

[raz-0]

My guess is with the 2.4 0-60 will be between 7.5 seconds and 9.5 seconds depending on gearing.

There's no reason given the weight and the engine's numbers in other platforms that it shouldn't be pretty livable. I'm in NJ where highway traffic is awful and aggressive. 7.5-8 is pretty livable. 9 seconds is enough to get by if you are paying attention. Slower than that is kind of hairy on a regular basis if it doesn't come with enough volume and mass to make other think twice about the notion of plowing into you and living.

 

[tony]

Should we be concerned about if it will be powerful enough when going up hill? I hope it won't be sluggish.

 

[wpgguy]

Hi all! Just joined the forum.


Just thought I would add to this thread. I currently drive a 2014 Cherokee with the 2.4L engine. I'm not sure why you mention the 2.4L is grossly under-powered. I currently have 15,000 kilometers and I'm 100% satisfied with the 2.4L engine.

Considering the Cherokee weighs probably 1 ton more than the Renegade, the Renegade will definitely have a lot of pep when combined with the 9 speed transmission. The gear ratios are perfect and provide power when needed.

I do a lot of highway driving and minor off-roading. The only time's I've wished for more power was passing on the highway, even then it isn't bad at all. I've driven from Winnipeg to Toronto, had no problems at all driving through the hills of the canadian shield with a full load. I also tow my 1000lbs camper trailer (through hills) with ease.

If you're looking to save some cost on fuel, this engine does well. If you're looking for something powerful to race or more off-roading, then the V6 might be a better option.


A good word of advice is to experience it for yourself. Reading forums can seriously sway your opinion into purchasing something you likely don't need just because the majority is leaning towards one side. If I would have listened to everyone telling me to get the V6, it would have been money wasted. The 2.4L satisfies all of my needs.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Karamich]

I agree you need to try it yourself and judge based on need and references (cars you already owned)...

I myself test drove the Cherokee (North aka Latitude) 2.4 when it came out last year, and it felt underpowered vs weight.

Note that I own a Patriot and it is also on the underpower slugish side however I thought the Cherokee was worth in terms of feeling. I initially thought that perhaps because the gaz pedal of the Cherokee was softer than the one in my Patriot, thus it might exagerate the feeling of a weak engine ... Just guessing

Later I test drove the Cherokee Trailhawk V6 and it was a smooth beauty... But too expensive for me... And gaz is a factor...

On the other side, I test drove lately the Subaru Outback 2015 with its 2.5 and it was so smooth and responsive considering its size and weight... I loved it...

Another conclusion is that I suspect now that the CVT in the Outback and Patriot help compensate for weak engines vs weight while the not so optimal 9 speed transmition in the Cherokee (and Renegade) might accentuate the weakness of an engine

It is only my conclusions and I again advise you to test drove and judge

Cheers

 

[tony]

Thanks for your feedback and welcome to the forum
I agree, it's all about experiencing it. You can only get so much of it from reading and wathcing videos.

 

[raz-0]

Should we be concerned about if it will be powerful enough when going up hill? I hope it won't be sluggish.

For towing? Probably. Especially so if you are talking the upper end of towing capacity or the grade. It isn't going to be fast even on it's own. the 2.5 cx-5 0-60 is 7.8 and the smaller displacement engine is 9.2. The kia soul 2.0 was 7.8 and now is 8.1 or 8.3 depending on who you ask. The old scion xB whis was pretty close in size to the renegade was 7.8. The new version which is a bit bigger is 8.6.

Pretty much most of the SUV and CUV world falls between 7.5 and 9 unless you opt for a a v-8 or turbo 6 option and start heading towards $40k. 7.8 covers the sportier options on most of the CUVs one notch up. The juke can in theory do a bit better at around 7 seconds. But it's also 300lbs lighter than an AWD renegade is supposed to be.

 

[raz-0]

I agree you need to try it yourself and judge based on need and references (cars you already owned)...

I myself test drove the Cherokee (North aka Latitude) 2.4 when it came out last year, and it felt underpowered vs weight.

Note that I own a Patriot and it is also on the underpower slugish side however I thought the Cherokee was worth in terms of feeling. I initially thought that perhaps because the gaz pedal of the Cherokee was softer than the one in my Patriot, thus it might exagerate the feeling of a weak engine ... Just guessing

Later I test drove the Cherokee Trailhawk V6 and it was a smooth beauty... But too expensive for me... And gaz is a factor...

On the other side, I test drove lately the Subaru Outback 2015 with its 2.5 and it was so smooth and responsive considering its size and weight... I loved it...

Another conclusion is that I suspect now that the CVT in the Outback and Patriot help compensate for weak engines vs weight while the not so optimal 9 speed transmition in the Cherokee (and Renegade) might accentuate the weakness of an engine

It is only my conclusions and I again advise you to test drove and judge

Cheers

Odds are what you felt was weigh, electronic throttle mapping choices, and the fact that the subaru 2.5 is a bit more torquey than the 2.4l tiger shark. But the awd outback, 4x4 patriot and 4x4 renegade are all around the same weight. The cherokee with 4x4 and the 2.4 is 4044lbs where the trailhawk renegade is supposed to be 3490 and the 4x4 2.4l non trailhawk is supposed to be 3311.

adding half or more of the maximum passenger and internal cargo capcity to the patriot would probably have made it feel like a pig as well.

 

[Karamich]

Odds are what you felt was weigh, electronic throttle mapping choices, and the fact that the subaru 2.5 is a bit more torquey than the 2.4l tiger shark. But the awd outback, 4x4 patriot and 4x4 renegade are all around the same weight. The cherokee with 4x4 and the 2.4 is 4044lbs where the trailhawk renegade is supposed to be 3490 and the 4x4 2.4l non trailhawk is supposed to be 3311.

adding half or more of the maximum passenger and internal cargo capcity to the patriot would probably have made it feel like a pig as well.

Thanks for the info. Yeah if I fill the seats of the Patriot as well as the cargo area, it will become a lazy elephant

 

[rambo]

Thanks for your feedback and welcome to the forum
I agree, it's all about experiencing it. You can only get so much of it from reading and wathcing videos.

on it's own without a load it's towing it should be fine.