2007 Jeep Limited on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports digs Mazda3, disses Jeep Cherokee

Consumer Reports has just rendered its verdict on two of the more important cars to launch this year - the Mazda3 and the Jeep Cherokee. Considering the value a "Recommended" rating carries with the public and the viciously competitive markets these two cars compete in, Consumer Reports' view could have some impact on their initial success.
For Mazda, that's a good thing. CR spoke quite highly of the Zoom-Zoom brand's compact sedan and hatch, testing both models, and citing the excellent fuel economy and snickety-snack manual shifter as high points. Downsides to the 3 included a ride that is agile but "nervous," a bit too much noise and a cramped back seat. Still, the 3 was good enough to earn its place in the ranks of the "Recommended."
The Jeep didn't fare quite so well, with CR calling the polarizing CUV "half-baked." Although both engines were tested, the magazine called the 2.4-liter four-pot underpowered and its nine-speed automatic unrefined and unresponsive. That's particularly damning, considering the 9AT's role in future Chrysler products, including the extremely important 200. Overall, the Cherokee missed out on the coveted "Recommended" rating.

FCA's Pentastar V6 gets more power, efficiency for 2016

Already a vital member of FCA's powertrain lineup, the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 is receiving major efficiency improvements for 2016. Thanks to a massive amount of new tech attached to the mill, fuel economy is up six percent, and torque below 3,000 rpm jumps nearly 15 percent. The updates arrive first in the 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee, but they should proliferate to other models eventually. At least in the Grand Cherokee, the tweaks push power up five horsepower to 295 ponies. FCA's engineers went through the Pentastar from top to bottom to eke out as much efficiency as possible. For example, there's now a two-speed variable-valve lift system that can run in low- or high-lift modes. This upgrade is responsible for 2.7-percent better economy, the company claims. A new intake manifold with longer runners and updated variable-valve times also helps boost the torque output. Further improvements come from pushing the compression ratio to 11.3:1, from 10.2:1 before. Perhaps most impressive is that despite all of the innovations, the latest Pentastar actually weighs four pounds less than the current version. Beyond the Pentastar improvements, all of the FCA US gasoline engines, except for the Viper's 8.4-liter V10, will be E15-compatible for 2016. The company says that it wants to be ready for the higher ethanol content fuel's greater use in the near future.

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.