Yuuup, the 3.7 is a dog, sounds more like a vacuum cleaner on high!
The Pat is more comfortable than the Cherokee and maybe as quick....loved my '89 so I'm not putting either one down. The Blazers sucked and so did that Vortex V6 they had. The Bronco IIs were just awful. Hyundai doesn't even have a 4x4 with any off-road credentials, the Rav4 is cheeeeeap!
And when did you ever see a Q anything in the dirt? Never.
In fact, I was driving Audis before the Cherokee and never looked back.
Having done the NY thruway from SoJersey to Sugarbush for longer than I can remember, some of the death marches we did with any of our 'big' Jeeps
were with no one else on the road.
In Hunter, NY for the superstorm in March '93 and after shoveling out we shared the whole mountain with about 30 other souls. Schweet!
Drove back that sunday and cars and such were still sitting on the NJ Parkway where their owners abandoned them, it wasn't even plowed yet. Glad we hadn't gone all the way to VT on that one. Even the Jersey turnpike was one lane.
Call me biased, but the dolts at Forbes need to get the wax out of their ears and do some offroading.
I agree, best value and return for what most of us were looking for, versatility.
I still get a good laugh out of that Q5 v Patriot comparison some time back.
Lambo v Corvette? I'll take the C5 even over a C6 even. Subjective? Call me biased.
Forbes advertising, whoever pays the bills!
