I don't know what the weight of the Patriot is, or if that even comes into play when considering torque....but 165 doesn't seem like it very beefy compared to a Liberty at 235. How much difference is there in these vehicles weight?


Is there a way of increasing the torque by modifications?

. . . but let's compare the apples to apples. Maybe someone can find Subaru's, Honda CR-V, or Ford Escapes' torque numbers and post them.

Subaru (without turbo) - 173 hp, 166 torque.
Subaru (turbo) - 230 hp, 235 torque.
CRV - 156 hp, 160 torque
Ford - 153 hp, 152 torque.

Point taken....but I'd rather it be a little stronger.

The V6 Ford Escape's torque is 193 ft. lbs.
As this engine is the most frequently purchased it is relevant.
Also the Escape can tow up to 3500 lbs.

Further, the CRV, like this years RAV-4, is being redesigned with a more powerful engine.

I guarantee the CRV will be at least in the 185 - 190 range for hp and above 180 for torque.

The point being, at least there is an option for vehicles like the Forester, RAV-4, Escape, and soon the CRV.

However, they are older models....so maybe the Patriot will offer a more powerful package in the future. I read somewhere that Chrysler is considering new V6 engines for their vehicles.

Like any other introduction, they go with a basic package, and then will market upgrades as they get feedback. No doubt, they will offer another engine as an option within a year.

Small crossover suv will be the fastest growing segment of the auto market over the next few years. Jeep has between 2 and 4 products in this segment (wrangler & liberty) so it is well covered.

I am not sure that putting a higher torque v6 is the best solution for who the Patriot is intended to sell to. With a towing capacity of 1500 to 2000 lbs (my numbers) and just enough engine, I think it is right on target.

It would be nice to know what the diesel is good for.

I'll answer my own question...

From GreenCarCongress.com

"The 2007 Dodge Caliber will be available with all three displacements in the World Engine family: 1.8-liter (140 hp / 104 kW), 2.0-liter (150 hp / 112 kW) and 2.4-liter (170 hp / 127 kW). For non-US markets, Dodge is offering a new 2.0-liter turbo diesel engine (which is built by Volkswagen).

The 2.0-liter diesel is a direct-injection turbo diesel with high-pressure fuel injection, a variable geometry turbocharger and four valves per cylinder. The injectors are electronically controlled, allowing precise management of each combustion cycle with the optimum quantity of fuel. This system can operate at pressures up to 2,000 bar, leading to finer atomization of fuel, high power and torque and improved fuel efficiency.

The turbo diesel engine is expected to position the Dodge Caliber sold in Europe among the best in its class for power, torque and towing capacity. Maximum power is estimated at 134 hp (100 kW), and peak torque is estimated at 229 lb-ft (310 Nm)."

why, again, can't we bring that diesel engine over here?!?!?

Or are we waiting for that magic date in 2008?

It would be nice to have a diesel but not sure about getting a VW engine. They are extremely efficient but shall we say are of questionable reliability.

May want to carefully consider that one.

Given the recent track record with Jeep I would also be hesitant that D-C would drop the engine. It is nice to have a supply chain based upon keeping production quantities of 500k units per year for a minimum of ten years of this engine series on the road running versus 10-20k units of a one year production run in the U.S. anyways.

Your Patriot will have mileage approaching or exceeding 100000 before diesels will be rooted in America outside of trucking.

. . . but I just can't see a CR-V off-roading:-))

BTW, I believe the Compass weighs in around 3,300 pounds according to info on Jeep.com. I'm thinking the Patriot will be a little more.

. . . but I just can't see a CR-V off-roading:-))

BTW, I believe the Compass weighs in around 3,300 pounds according to info on Jeep.com. I'm thinking the Patriot will be a little more.

That's 100 lbs more than the Forester and 170 lbs less than the CR-V.


In truth, I think the real competition for this vehicle is the Suzuki Grand Vitara...similar price, similar off-road capability (low-range 4WD), but 185 HP and torque...decent gas mileage.

After test driving the Suzuki I found two problems.

The dealer network is very weak compared to Jeep. In my metro area there are three five star Jeep dealers within 15 miles. There is one very poor Suzuki dealer in 25 miles. Can't sell them if you can't find them or get them fixed.

Second due to low ground clearance and a very exposed rear end the Suzuki will suffer damage in even minor offroading. It is really a road SUV much like the Compass.

One more thing on the Suzuki. You cannot find them in 4x4. Not sure if it is the production mix or just a temporary demand issue. Not bad and it will sell in good numbers for Suzuki.

Saw one on a cable show being tested in the southern Ca. desert. Of course Suzuki was sponsoring the show. Like it's ad copy, the tester was careful to keep the G-V from going on too steep terrain slopes.

I've seen similar shows for a lot of the new "4x4"s. I use the term "4x4" very loosely for those. Every single one takes advantage of camera angle to pretend to do extreme off-roading while they are really driving down a dusty water-table flat road (not a trail).

It's pretty sad.

I'm not sure about the new Suzuki. If it lives up to the trail-ability of the original Samurai, than it will do well out on the trails.

After test driving the Suzuki I found two problems.

The dealer network is very weak compared to Jeep. In my metro area there are three five star Jeep dealers within 15 miles. There is one very poor Suzuki dealer in 25 miles. Can't sell them if you can't find them or get them fixed.

Second due to low ground clearance and a very exposed rear end the Suzuki will suffer damage in even minor offroading. It is really a road SUV much like the Compass.


I agree with your first point....but I'm talking about the vehicle itself...not the company.

As for the low ground clearance, wouldn't a 2.5" lift kit fix that instantly? Don't get me wrong...I've heard some sketchy things about the vehicle:
-skid plates made out of plastic?
-weak exhaust pipe.

But, I've read really good things too. First they have a 4-mode 4WD....that is huge, and it competes with if not beats what the Jeep offers: 4H, 4H-lock, N, and 4L. There is no 2WD, so you can drive with confidence year-round in 4H. If there is really deep snow or slippery ice, you have 4H-Lock, and then there is Low range for off-roading.

Besides ground clearance and maybe water fording, where is the Patriot more capable than this vehicle?...especially when its engine is weaker. The price, when completely equipped, will be the same.....the Compass price gets up to $24,000, so I assume the Patriots will meet or exceed that with an off-road package.

Granted, the Patriot looks tougher...but with a lift kit on the GV, I am sure they would give a Patriot some competition on the rocky roads.

EDIT: After posting this I found out that there are no lift-kits availabe for the GV, and even if there was, the exhaust is built so that you couldn't make it a serious off-roader (as with previous models).

I hope Jeep leaves the doors open for modification on the Patriot. I wouldn't buy one until I saw some sites offering lift-kits and turbo chargers for it.

I know we are getting off topic.

The reason why the dealer network is important is thus: I had my old XJ give a false error code for the 4WD stuck on a trip 1000 miles away. I was able to quickly find a Jeep dealer. They checked it out and fixed the minor problem.

The G-V is complex and tightly assembled. Great for a road car. Not so great for an offroader where simple and rugged win every time. In that the previous generation G-V was superior.

I am expanding my search for our next daily-commuter 4x4. In doing so, I want to keep an open mind and look at all the real options in the price range and see who has the best bang for the buck.

I saw an article on the new Toyota Highlander 4x4 Hybrid and decided to see how it stacked up... than I found this:
According to the Toyota Motor Corp, even the high-spec, four-wheel-drive Highlander Hybrid SUV is "not designed to be driven off road". :wow:

what's the point at getting the 4x4 option than?!?!? so my search goes on.

What else hauls 2 adults, 2 large front-facing car seats, 1 large rear-facing car seat, and the misc camping stuff (roof carrier counts) - all while being able to get decent MPGs and cost under say... $25K.

Actually, VW engines are fantastic. It's the electrical systems (the ones that are not directly related to engine operation) that tend to go. We've owned VW's and Jeeps exclusively for the past 7 years, and if they decided to throw a VW diesel into a Patriot, that trend would definitely continue.

With only 4 cylinders, it is difficult to generate 230 lbs of torque. Especially when you don't have a turbo/supercharger, or a diesel engine. If you are towing, don't get the patriot. it can only tow 2000 lbs (equip w tow package). You will be better off with a Jeep Liberty or Grand Cherokee. The Patriot is all about fuel economy, light offroading, utility, and fun, not really towing. Plus, the Jeep patriot is 1000 lbs lighter than a similar size Liberty, so, it is all relative.

A quick comment on the torque issue. You also have to look at the transmission gear ratios. For offroad, the CRV and the like typically offer at best a 12:1 maximum low end ratio, while the Jeep offers 14:1 stock and 19:1 with FDII.

I once took a CRV off road and never will again. I almost blew the automatic transmission trying to climb a steep hill. The car just couldn't lock up the torque converter so I was climbing the hill at 3000RPM and barely hit walking speed. More torque at the wheels would have solved this.

As for Suzuki, I used to own a Sidekick and found it to be a great off-roader and commuter car. When I was out shopping for a new car, I went to Suzuki first looking for a slightly larger version of what I had. However, it seems that Suzuki has somewhat abandoned the compact SUV market in North America for some reason. They are making a small SUV, but they put a gas guzzling V6 in it.

It's really about time that Jeep produced a competitor to the CRV and RAV-4. They could have been making money in this segment for years!

That's news to me. My family had 3 of them in the 80's and not one went less than 225,000 miles. One went 325,000 and none were rebuilt or had major repairs.

there are 4 issues with diesels in general and VWs were no different.

1. They used glow plugs. If even one of them failed you would have a problem starting if the temperature was under about 25.

2. Early ones used manually adjustable valves. About every 30k you had to take it in and have the valves adjusted.

3. Fuel quality was an issue in the US. No. 2 diesel gels at a relatively 20 degrees F. In colder climates, you had to make sure you either had treated #2, or ran #1 or a 50/50 mix of #1 and #2.

4. In order to make starting easier in the cold months, you almost needed to run synthetic oil because regular viscosities just got too thick which hampered the starting rpm which in turn hampered compression which is vital in a diesel.

That's why Americans are so allergic to diesels. They don't understand them and they don't want to. Gm didn't help with their poorly thought out diesels in passanger cars in the 80's. Those were truly a joke and the dealers didn't have the slightest clue.

I personally grew up with them on the farm in equipment and in trucks. If you understand them and realize they need different care than a gas engine, they will last longer and get double the fuel economy. It's that simple.

I remember having to plug in the VW rabbit diesel. Loved that car!

Although VW quality and good service have gone downhill since then, but it'll be interested to see if the VW and others can bring a good diesel back to the states.