Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel Option Likely

changingtime · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:25 pm

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto ... index.html

"There's a better than 50 percent chance that the diesel will make it to the USA," said Sergio Marchionne, referring to the Grand Cherokee.

The diesel mentioned by Marchionne was introduced February in Europe. The 3.0-liter V-6 was designed by diesel specialists VM Motori. Fiat acquired 50 percent ownership of the company earlier this year, buying the portion owned by Penske. The other half of VM is owned by General Motors

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 2:33 pm

Sounds nice, but I would still rather have a JK diesel before a WK2 diesel, or a KK for that matter.

quebeccrd · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:20 pm

«The hot new Jeep Grand Cherokee in North America will – somewhere between soon and the end of 2013 – be getting the same recently improved 3.0-liter V6 turbo-diesel engine that Europe gets. In the Grand Cherokee, this oil-burning powerplant is good for 237 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque, the latter of which is fully delivered between 1,800 and 2,800 rpm. This is music to all Jamboree and Rubicon fanatics everywhere.»

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/14/jeep-grand-cherokee-to-get-3-0l-diesel-v6-in-north-america-by-20/

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:30 pm

It's all encouraging, but even then, I get the feeling the WK2 Diesel is going to be priced so high as to not be the type of vehicle I would buy, and 2013 is a long way off, its always a long way off.

More interested in a diesel JK or KK.

changingtime · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:31 pm

What is says is that someone is listening. Whether they introduce the Grand Cherokee first to me doesn’t matter. It’s the notion that they are going to step back into diesels in the US.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:49 pm

changingtime wrote:

What is says is that someone is listening. Whether they introduce the Grand Cherokee first to me doesn’t matter. It’s the notion that they are going to step back into diesels in the US.

If first for 2013 means the WK2 then later the others.....that means the JK and KK will have ended production by then, and the Us model will not see the diesel before the replacement to the KK and the JK comes out.

geordi · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:54 pm

The rumor mill ALWAYS sets the release date as (currentMY + 2) so that the sheeple will continue to pay attention to any and all press releases and advertising. This has a dual purpose:
1: To keep the sheeple busy being inundated by that manufacturer's marketing, so they might not have enough time to read material from a competitor, thus enhancing brand loyalty.
2: Hopefully during the ensuing period of marketing drivel (while the manufacturer may or may not be building what they hinted at) the sheep needs a new vehicle, and being inundated with marketing drivel (see reason #1) they might buy a different vehicle from that manufacturer.

Want proof of this theory? Look to Ford and GM, and their continuous pledges about offering a diesel in the smallest midsize trucks in their lineups. (Not the Canyon / Ranger size, the 1500 / F150 size) There is NO good reason why a truck that size can't have our engine or a similar one, yet the manufacturers continue to promise and dither and deliver NOTHING.

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:09 pm

"It's all encouraging, but even then, I get the feeling the WK2 Diesel is going to be priced so high as to not be the type of vehicle I would buy, and 2013 is a long way off, its always a long way off.

I agree with Sam. A GC Diesel is going to be quite a tall hit on the pocket book. In a marginal to bad economy it would leave me way behind..

mikey1273 · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:53 pm

I agree that the Grand is going to be too expensive for most of us me included. So that more buyers can have a deisel lets hope they don't do like the last diesel GC they sold here and only offered it in the Limited and Higher trims. They need to have it as an option like it was on our Liberty, both sport and limited.

I personally think the new Grand Cherokee is very nice looking but I'm not sure I would drive one. I drive my Dad's 2003 a few times and while it's nice and all. you are high like you should be but the ride and seating position are more car like Than my Liberty. Then there is the engine. His has the 4.0L 6cyl. It felt ok but not as quick and powerful as my ECO tuned CRD is.

LibertyCRD · **Posted:** Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:41 pm

Yeah, at $48 grand nobody will buy them. Didn't they learn this back in '07?!

Drop the 4 cylinder CRD into the JK and you won't be able to build them fast enough to meet demand.

OldSkull · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:44 am

LibertyCRD wrote:

Yeah, at $48 grand nobody will buy them. Didn't they learn this back in '07?!

Drop the 4 cylinder CRD into the JK and you won't be able to build them fast enough to meet demand.

If the price of gas continue to "skyrocket" they got a chance since the need for a 7500 lbs towing capable SUV doing good mpg is there. The competition diesel offer in this class are Mercedes ML, BMW X5 and VW Touareg , I think the GC stand a chance agains them since they are more expensive. Buyers of big gas starving SUV may change there mind next time they enter in a dealer show room :wink:

And 2011 GC got a fracking nice facelift!

onthehunt · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:57 am

Diesel is dead in this country. The EPA has made it this way. I frankly have no idea why anyone would buy a new diesel with all the emission crap added on. They are closing the efficiency gap with direct-injected, turbocharged gas engines. They are not handicapped from the start by the EPA. This is the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

LibertyCRD · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:42 pm

onthehunt wrote:

Diesel is dead in this country. The EPA has made it this way. I frankly have no idea why anyone would buy a new diesel with all the emission crap added on. They are closing the efficiency gap with direct-injected, turbocharged gas engines. They are not handicapped from the start by the EPA. This is the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

I disagree. I got into it with the guys on the pickuptrucks.com boards about this. Ford just wasted MILLIONS of dollars trying to push a V6 gas engine past the 400 lb./ft. mark...something a 1980s-era Cummins 4BT will do all day long. Not to mention those Ford engines will be a nightmare in the long run...just wait and see. Diesel is where it's at...it's time for the manufacturers to wake up and smell the roses. If they would band together and pressure the Feds, they could get the EPA's anti-diesel wrath losened a little.

Sir Sam · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:01 pm

A thought occured to me.

Daimler tried to push the CRD option on only the highest end WKs, and we saw how that worked, but only a few grand more you could get a ML with the same engine.

The KJ was a success in my book because of the relatively low cost of the vehicle.

But I think one vehicle were the extra 3k for the cost would get readily absorbed by the consumer would be the rubicon, the rubicon has to already be priced for a greater profit margin already, so offering a diesel rubicon(and perhaps only a rubicon) could be a good route to go. Give Jeep a greater profit margin vehicle, without being too terribly expensive.

JL Rockies · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:08 pm

There's a site called "pickuptrucks.com"? Lolz.

GreenDieselEngineering · **Joined:** Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:10 pm **Posts:** 1111

The OEMs stuggle to make a business case for diesel in the smaller applications. They also fail to understand the mindset of most diesel owners in the US. Diesel owners are very price sensitive and like to balance the vehicle cost vs. fuel economy trade-off or towing capability. A 50k+ luxury SUV just does not make sense to us. If we had that much to spend on a vehicle, then fuel economy is not very high on the priority list.

The emission system + a diesel powertrain will add about $6000 to the manufacturer cost basis. Their sales would suffer if that cost was fully passed on to the consumer. Of course, if the diesel engine could be manufactured domestically, this could knock off 2k on the production costs, but that would require some stout sales to justify building an engine assembly plant stateside (referring to the VM engine in the Jeeps). The dollar is worth less and less by the day, which makes it difficult to hedge the exchange rate risk.

The JK would be a much better seller than the Grand Cherokee.

mikey1273 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:42 pm

GreenDieselEngineering wrote:

The JK would be a much better seller than the Grand Cherokee.

I agree with that. If I were in the market and financially ready to buy a new Jeep and A JK were offered in a CRD I would be all over it. In fact I am hopping to by a new Jeep in say 5 years..... I would like it to be a Wrangler CRD either unlimited or a standard Rubicon. I can't wait to see what Fiat/Chrysler does with The Jeep brand. Being it has a long and loyal following they should be giving Jeep the best technology and inivations.

THe Grand Cherokee can still have its diesel but they need to price it right and put it in as an option on all models not just the top end trim levels.

Our weaker Dollar is not going to help the cost of the Italian engines..... That could pose a problem.

truckbouy2 · **Posted:** Wed Apr 20, 2011 6:22 pm

"The emission system + a diesel powertrain will add about $6000 to the manufacturer cost basis. Their sales would suffer if that cost was fully passed on to the consumer. Of course, if the diesel engine could be manufactured domestically, this could knock off 2k on the production costs, but that would require some stout sales to justify building an engine assembly plant stateside (referring to the VM engine in the Jeeps). The dollar is worth less and less by the day, which makes it difficult to hedge the exchange rate risk."

That being good solid reasoning. My question for the experts is. Diesel Jeeps are already rolling off the assembly line in Toledo destined for all over the world but here. There's no need for a great engine plant and all the trimmings to be created to add to the alleged enormous cost. Couldn't good solid engineering tweek what's already being built to suit the emission requirements here ? I can see the lack of enthusiasm on Chrysler's part if it was a ground up brand spankin' new model. I sometimes think that it is more than just cost or emissions issues. Maybe you guys can educate me here. I sure would like to understand why a diesel model rolls out of Toledo for all over the world and nobody in the Chrysler Brainiac division can whistle up an emissions tweek on a already existing vehicle without telling us it will add thousands and thousands and thousands, therefore we just can't justify it... It's got me stumped

GreenDieselEngineering · **Joined:** Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:10 pm **Posts:** 1111

The Jeep Wrangler CRD will sell for $34,000 US minimum over in England for new. That same vehicle here could only muster $26,000 for a baseline CRD. The exchange rates are favoring the export market for profit margin.

Now if the assembly plant is not fully utilized, gaining the incremental sales volume in the states with a CRD would still be profitable for the automaker. Just not as profitable...

LANCESR · **Posted:** Thu May 12, 2011 10:26 am

Well my 2cents is this.... while I was at corporate headquarters there are quite a few CRD 2011+ Grand Cherokees running around... they are Euro spec (side repeater marker lights on the front fender) but other than that they look like they could be a US vehicle....

Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel Option Likely

Who is online