Jeep Patriot - Off Road Testing

[BrewSwillis]

http://www.expeditionswest.com/equipment/r...triot/index.htm

and video:

Edited February 28, 2007 by BrewSwillis

[Northstar]

The Patriot would be a very good vehicle if the interior was better. Unfortunately it is not very good.

I would like to see the Compass do that too... I doubt it could.

[Z-06]

The Patriot would be a very good vehicle if the interior was better. Unfortunately it is not very good.

I would like to see the Compass do that too... I doubt it could.

I share the same thoughts about the Patriot. It is like a small vehicle with go anywhere capability a class of its own.

Compass was actually meant to be an urban hip mobile mostly for chicks who like to sit tall. It was not in DCX plans to make it trail rated.

[FAPTurbo]

Not bad I guess.

A product that might be worthy of GM's cash.

[sciguy_0504]

If the interior and powertrain were both a bit better the Patriot would be class leading and very compelling.

[ZL-1]

I like the Patriot! However, interior design and (at least) percieved quality appears to be on par with Compass and Caliber, which IMO isn't a good thing.

[BrewSwillis]

The Patriot would be a very good vehicle if the interior was better. Unfortunately it is not very good.

I would like to see the Compass do that too... I doubt it could.

If the interior and powertrain were both a bit better the Patriot would be class leading and very compelling.

I like the Patriot! However, interior design and (at least) percieved quality appears to be on par with Compass and Caliber, which IMO isn't a good thing.

Edited February 25, 2007 by BrewSwillis

[caddycruiser]

I don't doubt my own eyes in seeing that, but the Patriot, Caliber, and Compass all have such a thin and hollow feel in general, they scare me on the road let alone traversing things like that. But, I guess, you never know...let's hope it's one thing that might do well for them.

[MyerShift]

Ditto.

[BrewSwillis]

Another video:

The Patriot is just bad ass!!

[Northstar]

Well, you'd think if we all know it has a terrible interior that Chrysler would have been able to realize that before they released it, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

[Intrepidation]

Well, you'd think if we all know it has a terrible interior that Chrysler would have been able to realize that before they released it, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

Just like how you'd think GM would have thought to offer the 6-speed in at least one trim level of the Silverado, knowing the Tundra was going to debut with a 6-speed, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

[NOS2006]

Detroit, I don't think your argument is on par with the interior argument. The four speed works and is being replaced soon (2008 MY?). I don't see a very good replacement for the Caliber/Patriot/Compass/Durango/Aspen interiors coming soon.. Or am I wrong?

[Northstar]

Just like how you'd think GM would have thought to offer the 6-speed in at least one trim level of the Silverado, knowing the Tundra was going to debut with a 6-speed, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

Right...

GM doesn't have the capacity right now to build enough six-speed transmissions for each and every Silverado. As soon as more plants are converted over to be able to produce more six speeds, more vehicles will ave them. Having an interior that sucks has nothing to do with production capacity unless you're making the interiors by hand, and none of us are asking for that. We would just like to be able to have a pleasant place to ride around in, instead of a bucket of plastic. At least GM has the best interiors class.

There's a difference between investing money into a better interior and investing it into manufacturing plants. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars for GM to convert to the 6-speed, it would have taken Chrysler very little in comparison to give the Patriot a nice interior. $500/more per vehicle would be a huge improvement, I think. They could charge the same $500/more per unit because it would feel like it was worth $2k more than before.

There's absolutely no excuse that nearly all of Chrysler's recently debuted vehicles all suffer from poor interior quality. Not having the production capacity to make some part of a vehicle is another matter.

As NOS said, GM is supposed to have capacity to put six-speeds in all Silverados by the '08MY. Last I checked, Chrysler made no commitment to do the same with it's interiors.

[Flybrian]

GM's not for sale.

[BrewSwillis]

Well, you'd think if we all know it has a terrible interior that Chrysler would have been able to realize that before they released it, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

People just repeat what they hear. The reviews say that the interior is cheap, but on par and acceptable for this class and price range. I would trade a hard dash that I will never feel the need to rub while driving, for the sweet off-road ability that no other vehicle in this class can touch for the price!

It's priorities. Do you want a nice feeling dash that you can stroke all day.....or do you want something with style that can really go off-road??

[Northstar]

People just repeat what they hear. The reviews say that the interior is cheap, but on par and acceptable for this class and price range. I would trade a hard dash that I will never feel the need to rub while driving, for the sweet off-road ability that no other vehicle in this class can touch for the price!

It's priorities. Do you want a nice feeling dash that you can stroke all day.....or do you want something with style that can really go off-road??

I'm not repeating what I heard. I sat in the vehicle, it's crap. I hardly even read reviews any more.

I'm not asking for a leather-lined dash. I'm asking for an interior that, if I bought the vehicle, I wouldn't feel like I felt like I wasted $xxxxx after driving it for 2 weeks. You shouldn't have to pick whether you want good off-road ability or an acceptable interior.

Chrysler must be in the situation they're in because they have the same attitude. "Oh, we'll make the vehicle have this or that that's really good, and then people will choose our product no matter what and we can just stuff a junky interior into the vehicle." Problem is, most people don't want to make sacrifices when they're spending $20k+ on something. What do Avenger buyers gain by giving up any sort of quality interior? Not good off roading ability...

[Ravenfreak13]

I'm not repeating what I heard. I sat in the vehicle, it's crap. I hardly even read reviews any more.

I'm not asking for a leather-lined dash. I'm asking for an interior that, if I bought the vehicle, I wouldn't feel like I felt like I wasted $xxxxx after driving it for 2 weeks. You shouldn't have to pick whether you want good off-road ability or an acceptable interior.

Chrysler must be in the situation they're in because they have the same attitude. "Oh, we'll make the vehicle have this or that that's really good, and then people will choose our product no matter what and we can just stuff a junky interior into the vehicle." Problem is, most people don't want to make sacrifices when they're spending $20k+ on something. What do Avenger buyers gain by giving up any sort of quality interior? Not good off roading ability...

Um patriot starts around $14k....

[Northstar]

Um patriot starts around $14k....

With 2WD... you won't be doing that much off-roading in that. It also has no A/C ($850), no power windows, door locks, or mirrors. How many of those are you going to find on the lot?

The argument was that you can go off-roading for cheap, and therefore the interior doesn't matter. Well, yes $15k is cheap, but if you want A/C so that you don't die of heat exhaustion while going off-road in the middle of nowhere, and you'd like power windows and door locks, a CVT or auto trans (how many manuals are going to be on lots?), and a full size spare tire so that if you have to replace one you can still go off-roading, you're at nearly $20k, and that's the base model without many options that aren't standard on other vehicles in the class.

And, if you'd like one of the "nice" models, you're at over $26k. If you could get everything on the "nice" model but with it actually having a nice interior, you wouldn't see me complaining.

[Cory Wolfe]

Just like how you'd think GM would have thought to offer the 6-speed in at least one trim level of the Silverado, knowing the Tundra was going to debut with a 6-speed, but apparently they suck too much to figure such obvious things out.

Northie pretty much cleared that up... GM wasn't able to. Chrysler... well, is just too cheap because they can, but they didn't. In other words, they suck. Boo Hoo.

People just repeat what they hear. The reviews say that the interior is cheap, but on par and acceptable for this class and price range. I would trade a hard dash that I will never feel the need to rub while driving, for the sweet off-road ability that no other vehicle in this class can touch for the price!

It's priorities. Do you want a nice feeling dash that you can stroke all day.....or do you want something with style that can really go off-road??

Excuses, excuses. The only person I'm repeating is my own self. The interior is cheap, there are no doubts about it and there are no excuses for it.

[Guest YellowJacket894]

And they're selling the Compass because why . . . ? At least the Patriot has some real huevos and lives past its gutless compact car roots. The interior is still cheap, but if this works its way into the Hummer brand, at least you can take it down a moderately rough trail and it won't break in half. (I don't think it would really live up to the Hummer reputation, really, but at least you can take it off road in spite of the CVT transmission, no real four-wheel drive, and front-drive-based origins.)

Off Raod Testing

"Rowds. Robes. Row-ads . . . why can't I say that word?"

Edited February 28, 2007 by YellowJacket894

[Flybrian]

Allright, let's not mock people making typos...unless its Sixty8. God knows we all do it.

Honestly, I have no problem with the Patriot's interior in and of itself. Its cheap, hard plastic, but as long as its durable, absolutely acceptable for this class of vehicle. However, I have a serious problem with the Compass having the exact...same...interior for the sole reason that its geared towards the on-road, urban market. At least put some jazzy materials inside even if you're keeping the same design. Make it 'urban friendly.'

That's MY complaint. And if the Patriot can really do all the offroad stuff, awesome.

[dratnol]

Allright, let's not mock people making typos...unless its Sixty8. God knows we all do it.

Honestly, I have no problem with the Patriot's interior in and of itself. Its cheap, hard plastic, but as long as its durable, absolutely acceptable for this class of vehicle. However, I have a serious problem with the Compass having the exact...same...interior for the sole reason that its geared towards the on-road, urban market. At least put some jazzy materials inside even if you're keeping the same design. Make it 'urban friendly.'

That's MY complaint. And if the Patriot can really do all the offroad stuff, awesome.

I agree. The Patriot, Compass, and Caliber all having the same interior more or less is kind of a let down. An off-road 4x4 is fitting of an interior that is bound to get dirty and would be easy to clean. I think the Caliber and Compass need a slightly more refined interior for thier intended markets. Nonetheless, I like the Patriot and hope it does well.

[The O.C.]

Right...

GM doesn't have the capacity right now to build enough six-speed transmissions for each and every Silverado. As soon as more plants are converted over to be able to produce more six speeds, more vehicles will ave them.

That's a time-honored excuse that General Motors has used for decades....."we don't have production capacity...." Waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaa

If I remember correctly, that was the excuse they used a few years ago for not giving us the excellent 3.6L HF V6 in more models.......

I don't see any of the other major manufacturers having such "production capacity" issues for it's seemingly most important products.

To not plan ahead, and to not invest in order to make your most important products competitive in the marketplace is just plane absurdity to me. I don't see Toyota having "production capacity" problems with it's excellent new 3.5L V6 engine for example?

[Northstar]

That's a time-honored excuse that General Motors has used for decades....."we don't have production capacity...." Waaaaaa, waaaaaa, waaaaaa

If I remember correctly, that was the excuse they used a few years ago for not giving us the excellent 3.6L HF V6 in more models.......

I don't see any of the other major manufacturers having such "production capacity" issues for it's seemingly most important products.

To not plan ahead, and to not invest in order to make your most important products competitive in the marketplace is just plane absurdity to me. I don't see Toyota having "production capacity" problems with it's excellent new 3.5L V6 engine for example?

What vehicles were the 3.6 left out of when they hit the market that should have had them? The CTS didn't get it the first year because it wasn't ready. SRX, STS, and LaCrosse all had it right away.

Would Toyota have had the production capacity to produce ~1.5 million 6-speed autos for it's SUVs and pickups? I think the problem is that GM can't just turn it's 4-speed plants into 6-speed plants overnight, and when you're dealing with 1.5 million units (T900) it's not very easy to do. A few days downtime and they'd be way behind, and it usually takes a few weeks to convert the plants.

The 3.5 didn't go in the GS right away and didn't go in the RX right away. Was this because Toyota thought they shouldn't have it in a brand-new product (GS) while the competition all had much superior engines, or was it because they didn't have the capacity to build any more than they already were ? And, did they just leave it out of the RX for a while just because they felt like it, or did they not have the capacity to build more 3.5s?

Sure, in a perfect world GM would have had the 6-speeds ready to go as soon as T-900 production started, but what happens to all the T800 trucks needing transmissions then? Do they sit and wait a month or two to get a new 6-speed while GM loses tons of sales and billions of dollars?

[The O.C.]

What vehicles were the 3.6 left out of when they hit the market that should have had them? The CTS didn't get it the first year because it wasn't ready. SRX, STS, and LaCrosse all had it right away.

Would Toyota have had the production capacity to produce ~1.5 million 6-speed autos for it's SUVs and pickups? I think the problem is that GM can't just turn it's 4-speed plants into 6-speed plants overnight, and when you're dealing with 1.5 million units (T900) it's not very easy to do. A few days downtime and they'd be way behind, and it usually takes a few weeks to convert the plants.

The 3.5 didn't go in the GS right away and didn't go in the RX right away. Was this because Toyota thought they shouldn't have it in a brand-new product (GS) while the competition all had much superior engines, or was it because they didn't have the capacity to build any more than they already were ? And, did they just leave it out of the RX for a while just because they felt like it, or did they not have the capacity to build more 3.5s?

Sure, in a perfect world GM would have had the 6-speeds ready to go as soon as T-900 production started, but what happens to all the T800 trucks needing transmissions then? Do they sit and wait a month or two to get a new 6-speed while GM loses tons of sales and billions of dollars?

Your arguments are a stretch at best.

Lutz himself told me the only reason we didn't have the 3.6L in the G6 from the beginning....AND why the 3800 was the base engine in the Lucerne was because of production capacity.

Do you know how many Toyota-branded vehicles have 5-and 6-speed automatics? I bet it's quite a number.....fact of the matter is....you don't see someone like Toyota (or Honda, or BMW, et al) having to make excuses for not having competitive features in their vehicles because of "production capacity."

My point about the engines is that Toyota seemingly went from the "old" 3.3L V6s to the new 3.5L V6s in most of their products in a year or two's time....I don't remember any significant "lag" when their products were uncompetitive because they "couldn't get enough 3.5L engines."

[Northstar]

Your arguments are a stretch at best.

Lutz himself told me the only reason we didn't have the 3.6L in the G6 from the beginning....AND why the 3800 was the base engine in the Lucerne was because of production capacity.

Do you know how many Toyota-branded vehicles have 5-and 6-speed automatics? I bet it's quite a number.....fact of the matter is....you don't see someone like Toyota (or Honda, or BMW, et al) having to make excuses for not having competitive features in their vehicles because of "production capacity."

My point about the engines is that Toyota seemingly went from the "old" 3.3L V6s to the new 3.5L V6s in most of their products in a year or two's time....I don't remember any significant "lag" when their products were uncompetitive because they "couldn't get enough 3.5L engines."

Certainly they have the production capacity for the Lucerne. The Aura, Malibu, G6, and Lambdas are all going to have it. Like you said, that was his excuse. Doesn't mean it's true. I think the reason is the people who buy the Lucerne like the 3800 and couldn't care less if it had the much more costly 3.6.

No one else produces as many vehicles as GM. If Toyota had to switch from 1.5 million 5-speed autos to 1.5 million 6-speed autos for their trucks, and about 500k of them switched one year, and the other 1 million switched the next, I highly doubt each vehicle would have the 6-speed. The Tundra is supposed to do 200k and it doesn't have the 6-speed in all the models, so how would you expect them to put 1.4 million MORE six speeds in their vehicles?

If one two two year's time is not a significant "lag" then you're simply not being fair to GM. The 6-speeds will be out of the T900s in one years time in the pickups and 2 years time in the SUVs. Happy now?

[Intrepidation]

Certainly they have the production capacity for the Lucerne. The Aura, Malibu, G6, and Lambdas are all going to have it. Like you said, that was his excuse. Doesn't mean it's true. I think the reason is the people who buy the Lucerne like the 3800 and couldn't care less if it had the much more costly 3.6.

No one else produces as many vehicles as GM. If Toyota had to switch from 1.5 million 5-speed autos to 1.5 million 6-speed autos for their trucks, and about 500k of them switched one year, and the other 1 million switched the next, I highly doubt each vehicle would have the 6-speed. The Tundra is supposed to do 200k and it doesn't have the 6-speed in all the models, so how would you expect them to put 1.4 million MORE six speeds in their vehicles?

If one two two year's time is not a significant "lag" then you're simply not being fair to GM. The 6-speeds will be out of the T900s in one years time in the pickups and 2 years time in the SUVs. Happy now?

I dunno about you, but I'd much rather have a powerful, fuel-efficient V6 and a 6-speed in the Lucerne than a gas sucking V8 with only a bit more power and 2 less gears.

GM makes the excuse that it didn't have the capacity to put the 6-speed in the Silverado. Why not make a trim level or an option to get the 6-speed in limited numbers. Then they can at least say they offer it. Increase the numbers when "production capacity" increases.

In the truck business, it's all about the bragging rights when it comes to getting good press. The GMT-900s win comparisons because they are so good...but every one they loose is because of the drivetrain, and mostly because of the 4-speed. If they offer the 6-speed in limited numbers and the testers can get their hands on the...then odds are the Silverado would win more if not all of the tests.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Dodgefan

[Northstar]

I dunno about you, but I'd much rather have a powerful, fuel-efficient V6 and a 6-speed in the Lucerne than a gas sucking V8 with only a bit more power and 2 less gears.

GM makes the excuse that it didn't have the capacity to put the 6-speed in the Silverado. Why not make a trim level or an option to get the 6-speed in limited numbers. Then they can at least say they offer it. Increase the numbers when "production capacity" increases.

In the truck business, it's all about the bragging rights when it comes to getting good press. The GMT-900s win comparisons because they are so good...but every one they loose is because of the drivetrain, and mostly because of the 4-speed. If they offer the 6-speed in limited numbers and the testers can get their hands on the...then odds are the Silverado would win more if not all of the tests.

Would you be a possible Lucerne buyer, though? I would rather have the 3.6 in it too, but I wouldn't ever buy it even if it did, so my opinion really doesn't matter to GM. The target customer really could care less how sophisticated it is, I think. Perhaps it would garner a few more sales, but GM must have figured it wasn't worth the extra money it costs them to put the 3.6 in it.

One more thing I just remembered: G-Body wasn't designed to have a 6-speed if I remember correctly. Perhaps that is a reason why it doesn't have the 3.6, too.

GM does have the 6-speed in the Sierra Denali.