1998 Jeep Cherokee Se Sport Utility 4-door 4.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Land Rover Defender V8 vs. Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 | V8 4x4s square off on paper

Land Rover pulled the sheet off its 2022 Defender on Wednesday, introducing another high-performance V8 to the off-road segment. This time, it's a 5.0-liter, supercharged V8 boasting 518 horsepower. It will be available in both the Defender 90 and 110 models. In the former, Land Rover says it can crack off a 0-60 run in just 4.9 seconds on its way to a top speed of 149 mph. The long-wheelbase 110 will be a bit slower, but "slow" probably isn't the right adjective to use here at all.  But Land Rover isn't the only automaker offering a high-performance variant of its off-road SUV. While Jeep may have been sneered at for presenting the 2021 Wrangler Rubicon 392 on the heels of the 2021 Ford Bronco's introduction, it starts to make a lot more sense in this context. There's reportedly a high-output Bronco on the way, too, so call Jeep the dinosaur of the group all you want, but you can't put a price on being first. Well, you can, actually, but that's not the point.  Thankfully, both Land Rover and Jeep have provided enough specs for us to rough out a comparison chart. Since the Rubicon 392 is offered only in four-door guise, we're looking at the long-wheelbase Defender 110 as its direct competitor here. Have a look: There are a few caveats to mention off the top. For starters, we don't have an official curb weight for the V8-powered Defender yet, as Land Rover has not finalized its U.S. specs. We used the European figures (as provided by a spokesperson), which we expect to be accurate within about 50 pounds. The 0-60 time provided by Land Rover was for the Defender 90, which is smaller and somewhat lighter than the 110. When equipped with the inline-6, the Defender 110 is about a tenth of a second slower to 60 than the Defender 90, so we figure it should be roughly the same for the V8.  While the Defender has nearly 50 horsepower on the Wrangler, that advantage disappears thanks to the Land Rover V8's monster weight penalty, which will fall somewhere between 600 and 700 pounds depending on equipment. Yikes. On the flip side, however, the Land Rover has the edge in top speed, and it's not even close. Chalk that up to the tires, we suspect. We know for a fact that the Rubicon 392's all-terrains dictate its speed limiter; Jeep's own engineers told us as much. This could make for a (hypothetically) interesting drag race, as the Jeep's advantage off the line may evaporate once triple digits come into play.

2016 Jeep Wrangler to ditch solid axles to save weight?

Hey, Jeep fans. If you think the idea of a funky-looking, car-based Cherokee revival is offensive, have a listen to what might be in store for the next-gen Jeep Wrangler. Automotive News is reporting that as Jeep develops the 2016 Wrangler, weight reduction is a crucial target, and the Wrangler's rugged solid axles could be sacrificed in the name of better fuel economy.
We've already heard the next Wrangler will go on a serious diet using aluminum body panels and an air suspension system, so the idea of a four-wheel independent suspension setup for this OG SUV isn't all that surprising. Besides, it's not like an independent suspension would limit the Wrangler's off-road abilities - just check out the Hummer H1. In fact, it might be the aftermarket parts companies - not Wrangler enthusiasts - who would be most disappointed by such a drastic suspension change, as the article states that the Wrangler's solid axles and coil-link suspension make it the most popular SUV for customization.
There are probably still a couple years before we'll start hearing any concrete details about the 2016 Wrangler, at which time it will be interesting to see how stricter fuel economy and crash safety regulations have been balanced with traditional Wrangler cues like its removable doors and roof and folding windshield. Let us know in the comments below if a Wrangler sans solid axles is any less of a Wrangler.

Jeep Comanche Moab Concept: Hell yeah!

The moment I saw the Jeep Renegade I knew it was a winner, at least in terms of styling. The Renegade's "face" is exactly what small 21st-century Jeeps should look like. It has loads of Jeep's visual heritage DNA – important! – that has been brought up-to-date in the best possible way. (Now if only they could graft that face on to the new-ish Cherokee...). Where the Renegade falls short is what's under the skin. Thanks to misguided marketing, it is saddled with a rather unremarkable USA-spec 2.4L four, undersized tires, so-so ground clearance, an iffy 9-speed automatic, and a questionable (available) low range. I don't mind the independent suspension; in fact I embrace it, as IFS/IRS is the future in terms of off-road suspension design. So, for me, the Renegade is a close-but-no-cigar vehicle, at least as it currently stands. This new Comanche, however, shows how the Renegade can evolve; both as a 4-door SUV, and in terms of how spin-off models can be developed. Big beefy tires, flared out fenders, and great ground clearance are the main ingredients that make this work visually. Still wish for a 3.6L V6 under the hood, but the 2.0L diesel isn't a bad alternative. Anyway, I think a Comanche pickup makes more sense than the predicted Wrangler-based pickup. Why? I'm not big on retro-vehicles in general. Rarely do they survive long term. Besides, the Comanche would be far more civilized and livable. I could see this Comanche pickup as a daily driver much more so than a Wrangler-based pickup. Yeah, I like and value creature comforts over ultimate off-road ability. I think most pickup buyers would agree. Finally, while there is a large devoted Wrangler following who would love a Wrangler-based pickup, I bet this Renegade-based Comanche would bring more new customers into the Jeep tent – especially over a much wider age demographic. Related Video: Image Credit: FCA Jeep jeep comanche open road