Jeep Cherokee
My wife has been proven herself to be doggedly resistant to the Car Lust virus. In fact, based on my experience over the last 10+ years, I'd say she's completely immune. Beautiful cars, ugly cars, expensive cars, cheap cars, tough cars, fun cars; none of them even scratch the thick armor of her complete and total indifference. It's not as if she hates cars; they just don't register with her. Despite my best efforts, she feels about cars like I feel about PVC pipe. In other words, not at all beyond a simple acknowledgment of existence.
There have been three exceptions. Her greatest car love was our Volvo 240, for sentimental reasons. On the other side of the coin, she hated our Saturn SL2 with just as much venom as I did. The third exception is the Jeep Cherokee.
I remember the day fondly. We were driving along, pulled up alongside a red Cherokee, and she idly remarked that she'd like to own one someday. This may not sound like much, but for me it was a glorious moment; a moment she no doubt regretted instantly. From that time on, I've been tireless in sending her listings of Cherokees, talking about Cherokees with her, and pointing them out in traffic. Based on one casual comment, I've become a Cherokee-oriented annoyance machine.
The thing is, I was pleased not only by the flickerings of interest in a vehicle, but by how good her taste was. I've always liked the Cherokee, and I'm proud that she likes the original, boxy Jeep Cherokee to the more modern and more sophisticated Jeep Grand Cherokee. The original XJ Cherokee is elegantly simple of line, and rugged to the extreme. It does everything a truck should do. It's tough, it's great off-road, and it can haul your gear.
My wife isn't the only Cherokee admirer out there. Introduced in 1984, the Cherokee was one of the first SUVs to replace family cars, and was so popular that it was made virtually unchanged through 2001. Not too shabby. Jeep cited the Cherokee's popularity in its decision to make the top-line Jeep Commander boxier and more rugged-looking. Of course, Jeep missed the point--the Cherokee was popular because it was simple, cheap, and rugged. Applying boxy lines to posh, expensive SUV isn't the same thing.
I see these all the time here in the Pacific Northwest. There are quite a few ex-government Cherokees floating around in the light green ex-forest service colors. I'm sure they've been beaten beyond any sense of decency, but they still trigger my imagination.
My wife has a slight preference for the face-lifted 1997-2001 version, ideally in red. But even in this, her innate good sense and reason will probably prevent a purchase. Unfortunately, she's unwilling to blow our family savings on an old car we don't really need. Nobody's perfect, right? But if we win the lottery someday, I'll tell her by leaving a red 2001 Cherokee on the driveway with a big red bow on top. Not quite, but something like this last photo here.
By the way, I do realize I'm asking for trouble here by following up an expensive new car with an SUV. Rob, in particular, I ask your pardon.
The ad below spells out the Cherokee's advantages pretty well, but my favorite part is when it kicks into a different gear 22 seconds in. Boom! The top photo is from Wikipedia, the second is from Flickr user Maza 6 (Tor), the third from the confusingly-named Flickr user gu1l7y5p4rk.
--Chris H.
Rob the SVX guy on June 25, 2008 at 01:26 PM
Chris: No pardon necessary. You've mentioned one of the very few SUVs I really don't mind at all. It's clean, it's not excessive, it's well designed, it's reliable (go slant six go!), and it's capable. It is a very useful vehicle, and it isn't a gas hog. It doesn't fall into the crowd that enjoys huge rims and subwoofers, and it's elegantly simple design just makes it seem like something that should be in MOMA.
I read "High and Mighty", a book about SUVs and how dangerous they are, and there's a chunk of that book dedicated to this Cherokee specifically. Why? Because unlike other SUVs, this one is actually safe. It has one of the lowest mortality rates of an SUV, it fares well in rollovers, car to car accidents, and regular collisions, and it also doesn't handle as horribly as other SUVs on the road. It's almost carlike in many of it's driving manners. It could be the design, where everything just meshes together beautifully. Or it could be the people who buy it, and their driving habits.
I'm pretty sure it's a bit of both.
Mochi Mochi on June 25, 2008 at 01:32 PM
This is a clean nice... what do I call it? To me it is not an SUV. It's a jeep. I've always thought of Jeeps as completely different than Cars, Trucks, or (EKKK!) SUVs. Solid clean lines - simple - Jeep. Not a 10ton armor plated overstuffed easy chair running on monster truck tires (my definition of a lot of SUVs). I like the early and mid 90's redesigns - they were very nice. I'm not entirely at ease with naming cars after ethnic groups (something that pontiac and VW have also done), but hey it's still a jeep.
David Colborne on June 25, 2008 at 09:59 PM
I like it. It's like a grown up version of the Suzuki Samurai - it does what it does and it does it well. It's something you can take off-road and not feel bad about it, but civilized enough where you can drive it to the grocery store. In short, everything the old International Scout was and just a little bit more.
Steaming Pile on June 26, 2008 at 05:53 AM
@D.C. - Ah, the Suzuki Kamikaze! The cheap, flimsy, jeep-like vehicle Consumer Reports managed to roll at something like 30 MPH. If memory serves, they had to put outriggers on the thing to test it. We can has Car Disgust for the Samurai, plz?
Mochi Mochi on June 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM
The Suzuki (Samurai/Kamikaze) was a (great/terrible) vehicle that was (perfectly/horribly) suited to use in (light off road & agricultural/street) driving. I (love/hate) the (useful/reductive&simplistic) test reports of Consumer Reports. Along with Ralph Nader they have successfully (improved product quality and safety/killed off some great and interesting directions) in cars sold in the US. Given their campaigns against the Corvair and the Suzuki, my only question is why they never went after the (late 60s triumph spitfire/Porsche 911.)
The thing I actually find most useful about Consumer Reports is their long term user based ratings of automotive repairs for cars. These grids of red and black circles and half circles are really useful in tracking how reliable certain cars are and where their weak points are. While they are not 100% statistically accurate, these ratings are pretty spot on - at least from my experience.
The thing I like about the Jeep Cherokee is that at a time when SUVs were starting to appear, and most of these 4WD cars were starting to "hit the streets" almost all of the competition was based on narrow track designs (like the Suzuki). Tall and tippy. But Jeep with infinite wisdom (likely aged by their experience with the easily rolled Wrangler) built a wide track car that had great ground clearance but a relatively low center of gravity. That was a major achievement for the time. The rest of the world is just catching on. Ford and GM staunchly refused to make SUVs stable on roads.
If you ever get the chance to watch this Frontline documentary its worth it.
"This excerpt from "Rollover: The Hidden History of the SUV" examines the development of the Ford Explorer and the decision by Ford's management to proceed on schedule with the Explorer's rollout in March 1990, despite the prototype's failure of a stability test, showing that it had the same rollover problems as its predecessor, the Bronco II. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/video.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/
I saw this documentary a few years ago. It has a completely dramatic and unstaged climax. The Narrator is on the steps of a capital building. He's doing the wrap up of the show. He gets half way through his sentence when there's a huge noise off camera. He stops, gasps, and gazes in amazement. Then there is chaos as the camera crew begins to run. What are the chances that an SUV would crash and flip over half a block from a camera crew doing a documentary about SUVs rolling over? What are the chances!? the answer is: Very Good.
So I commend Jeep for being smart in their design of the Cherokee. It's a nice car with a good profile that can handle off road and street conditions.
David Colborne on June 26, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Don't touch the Samurai, Chris... I have PLANS for it. Heh heh heh heh...
Brian on June 26, 2008 at 08:05 PM
It's a good one, isn't it? They used them for cop cars in my old home town of North Pole, Alaska back in the '90s, so somehow I have a particular aversion to them. However, today, they are DIRT cheap, as in, a friend of mine in a particularly destitute situation bought one, running, 4-wheel drive working, for 500 bucks. Yep, it's got it all, AMC badge, 4-wheel drive, 6-banger, room for guns, hobos, and booze. Apparently, for cops also.
Nice paragraph, Mochi Mochi.
David Drucker on June 27, 2008 at 05:23 AM
A year or so ago, or maybe it was last month, I saw a youtube video of a bunch of kids trying their damndest to destroy an old Cherokee. They performed unspeakable acts of violence on and with the poor old dear, and simply couldn't kill it.
(Pause to google the video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=gGFASxRPM10)
The styling benefits from what I've heard referred to as elemental aesthetics. I'm given to understand that this term means a design that's informed not by trends and fashion, but by definable rules of proportion. It's not my field, but I embrace the concept wholeheartedly: Twenty-five years on, the Cherokee still looks good to me.
Chris, your wife has good taste!
Ian on June 27, 2008 at 08:23 AM
Brian: That's kind of funny. I lived in Fairbanks for a little while a few years back, and as I recall, the taxi I took from the airport the first time I flew in was a Cherokee.
Anthony Cagle on June 27, 2008 at 01:08 PM
I came very close to getting one of these back when my Bronco II died in Oregon. Instead I swapped for the Mustang. Which was probably good because I quit doing fieldwork shortly thereafter and had no use for a 4x4.
The red Cherokee, incidentally, has a semi-famous Pacific northwest Seattle connection: It was the vehicle Lance Henriksen's character Frank Black drove in Fox's "Millennium" TV show that aired in the late '90s. And, in a weird bit of coincidence, some fans of the TV show traveled up to Vancouver B.C. to check out some of the show's set locations and when they went to the "Frank Black house" there happened to be a red Cherokee parked outside.
Of course, liking that show a lot makes me think of serial killers and demons and stuff whenever I see a red one. Perfect gift for the wife, Chris!
Sigivald on June 28, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I'm glad I'm not the only person that likes "Forest Service Puke Green" (as I call it) on a truck.
Johan Amedeus Metesky on June 29, 2008 at 06:09 PM
Dick Teague did the exterior styling on the XJ Cherokee. In terms of longevity, it's one of the most successful designs ever, pretty much the same design for 17 years, and it's still in production in China as the XJ2500. The XJ was the first unit body built by Jeep, and my guess is that they wanted to be sure it would be sturdy, so it's probably overengineered based on the many 200,000+ mile examples you can find on eBay.
Rob the SVX guy on June 30, 2008 at 12:01 PM
I'm not sure just because a car lasts 200,000 miles it's 'over engineered'. I'm pretty sure that just means it's engineered correctly, or taken care of well. My honda has 260,000 on it, and I wouldn't call it 'over engineered'.