I got a sneak peek at this thing in progress a few months ago, and I was intrigued but a bit concerned, mainly because of its passing resemblance to the Nissan Juke, which is, ahem, polarizing. Like the Juke, the Cherokee has slit-like high-mounted running lights, and the headlights are lower and larger. However, the Juke’s headlights are much larger and accompanied by an erratic collection of elements from the design parts bin.
The rear end is less inspiring (or offensive) because it could be mistaken for any number of other vehicles, such as a dumpier Ford Escape. In fact, the controversial nose might be the only thing to distinguish this SUV, but the same can be said of many vehicles, good and bad. The butched-up Trailhawk version might be an exception thanks to dark lower cladding and bumpers that are shaved to improve the approach and departure angles. They give it a pointier nose and slimmer hindquarters.
Visibility is pretty good out the front but definitely compromised to the rear because of the high beltline and rear window. The front seats are reasonably roomy, and the backseat is decent but not exceptional for a supposedly midsize five-seat SUV. The rear seats slide forward and back, a welcome feature for apportioning space between passengers and cargo. However, some SUVs with this feature allow backseat legroom to range from very good at one extreme to meager on the other. In the Cherokee, the optimal legroom is merely decent; the feature seems to be better at giving space to the cargo area than to the passengers.
As for the styling, I support Jeep’s daring. The brand’s SUVs can’t be lightly tweaked boxes and Grand Cherokee clones forever. Anyone who thinks the Cherokee will damage the Jeep brand can relax. If the original Compass didn’t ruin Jeep, nothing will.
Executive Editor
Joe Wiesenfelder
Former Executive Editor Joe Wiesenfelder, a Cars.com launch veteran, led the car evaluation effort. He owns a 1984 Mercedes 300D and a 2002 Mazda Miata SE.