Originally Posted by GetupnGo

Though the KL lacks in the approach angle and weighs 700-1000 pounds more than an XJ, it's gearing ratios, torque, power transfer unit, departure angle and lockers would likely allow it to out perform a stock XJ.

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

I don't see where we disagree when it comes to off road capabilities. You said the XJ was designed for weekend adventures that require 4x4. Correct me if i'm wrong, but to me that implies that 4x4 system is not the XJ's foremost function. That's what I was trying to say when I said "family and trail". I like your choice of words better than mine to define the XJ purpose though. The KL has a much more modern and sophisticated 4x4 system than my stock XJ had. If we took both vehicles straight off the showroom floor, Both Of them bone stock, I would have to believe that the KL would perform better than my XJ would have. Though the KL lacks in the approach angle and weighs 700-1000 pounds more than an XJ, it's gearing ratios, torque, power transfer unit, departure angle and lockers would likely allow it to out perform a stock XJ. But yet, as you stated, the KL 4x4 system is not its foremost function. It is for those weekend adventures just like the XJ. It's main focus during design was on-road capabilities. Where it seems to be quite a nimble, smooth, and fuel efficient vehicle.

Originally Posted by MtnHermit

Wonder if you didn't mean the opposite of what you said? I would expect the KL to be significantly lighter than the XJ, since it's based on the new Dodge Dart platform. The base engine is only a 2.4L I4.

The much lower weight and aerodynamics are what allows the 30 MPG rating.

Originally Posted by MtnHermit

Wonder if you didn't mean the opposite of what you said? I would expect the KL to be significantly lighter than the XJ, since it's based on the new Dodge Dart platform. The base engine is only a 2.4L I4.

The much lower weight and aerodynamics are what allows the 30 MPG rating.

Originally Posted by salad

Ah, the difference may seem subtle in writing but the marketing is a significant change. The XJ is a family 4x4. The KL is a family street machine, that can also do 4x4. In terms if the target market, the KL's 4x4 system is an aside. "I need 4x4 to get up the mountain to the cabin" versus "I want room for soccer ***** and AWD street handling. What does locking differential mean?"

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

If I'm wrong someone please correct me, but from what I understand:
Jeep cherokee XJ (4.0 I-6): 3100 lbs
Jeep cherokee KL (2.4 I-4): 3800 lbs
Jeep cherokee KL (3.2 v6): 4100 pounds

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

Ok. I see your point. Target markets are different. I definitely agree. But, would you consider a stock XJ a better 4x4 vehicle than the KL?

I guess I should make it clear that I think the top of the line trail hawk is really the only model that can be compared to our XJ's. the other models are lacking in a lot of areas to be compared fairly.

Originally Posted by MtnHermit

You are correct and I'm blown away.

I thought the "trend" today was lighter and sleeker. The KL is sure sleeker but 4000 lbs who'd thunk!!! One has to wonder where it's at, the XJ is all iron whereas the KL has aluminum everywhere: engine, t-case, diff(s). Must be in that 8" touchscreen.

Thanks to you and Salad for the enlightenment.

Now have an even better reason to keep my XJ.

Originally Posted by Scotty16

I would rather have a stock 4x4 xj. so yes.

Don't forget all the electrical and safety features, that also adds weight. unless im mistaken,

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

If I'm wrong someone please correct me, but from what I understand:
Jeep cherokee XJ (4.0 I-6): 3100 lbs
Jeep cherokee KL (2.4 I-4): 3800 lbs
Jeep cherokee KL (3.2 v6): 4100 pounds

It's actually pretty impressive the new tigershark puts out the same power as our 4.0's...
4.0: 190 hp 225 ft lb
Tigershark 2.4: 184 hp 171 ft lb
Pentastar 3.2: 270 hp 239 ft lb

The lower weight and aerodynamics are not what allows it to have great fuel efficiency. It's mainly engine technology and other powertrain improvements. Chrysler also said that having the 8th and 9th gears gives the KL another 2-3 added mpg highway.

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

Ok. I see your point. Target markets are different. I definitely agree. But, would you consider a stock XJ a better 4x4 vehicle than the KL?

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

I guess I should make it clear that I think the top of the line trail hawk is really the only model that can be compared to our XJ's. the other models are lacking in a lot of areas to be compared fairly.

Originally Posted by salad

100% stock? Depends how we're looking at it. I think the time-proven mechanical system in an XJ is going to win for reliability. To me, the NP242-equipped vehicles are solid performers. Feature-wise the KL's system is clearly superior. Time will tell how much abuse it can take, maintenance requirements, and electrical faults impact its performance. Again, value is in the eye of the beholder. The XJ system is great for the XJ market, and the KL system is great for the KL market.

Agreed. The lower model 4x4 systems basically aren't worth even mentioning for the sake of this discussion, which highlights what I was talking about as far as 4x4 capability being a secondary design element.

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

We can't bash the new cherokee too hard just yet simply because it's ugly.

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

Good point. Each XJ model that was equipped with 4x4 had pretty much the same components, correct? But there are clear differences in the 4x4 systems of each model of the KL.

Originally Posted by GetupnGo

Good discussion salad.