If you're going to wait til 2012, why not compare the Wrangler offering with the replacement for the Patriot/Compass which might come with a diesel and other improvements. Depending on what your expectations are, the Wrangler might still be the better choice.

 

Well, I needed the room inside, the mileage (It's my daily driver and I drive 100 miles a day for work) and the ability to get up my driveway, in all seasons.

The Patriot was the best fit for me.

You'll need to do your own evaluation based on your needs. Every month when you write the check for the vehicle, you are the one who needs to be happy with your decision.

Just as an example, I looked at the Liberty too, and it would have cost me about $2K more per year in gas, plus was a higher purchase price too.

I'm not sure the Wrangler, unless it has lockers front and rear, would do better getting up my driveway in winter. And I assume equipping it the way I would need would also affect the mileage. And I would need to be able to load in my dog box, and a big water container, and at least 3 big Rubbermaid containers, and more in the back.

 

Well, I needed the room inside, the mileage (It's my daily driver and I drive 100 miles a day for work) and the ability to get up my driveway, in all seasons.
I'm not sure the Wrangler, unless it has lockers front and rear, would do better getting up my driveway in winter.

Well the mileage has been addressed, for 2012 the JK is expected to achieve the same highway mileage as the current FDII Pat. I haven't seen anything for what the next Pat will get for mileage, so I can't speculate on that.

The room inside, the JK has 82 cubic feet compared to the Pat's 62.7 when the rear seats are folded. If you leave the seats up right, the JK has 46.4 cubic feet, the Pat has 23.

To get up the driveway, you're looking for an extra inch of ground clearance, the JK comes with that stock so you wouldn't have to pay for that lift. The JK also has the stability control and all those electric gizmos that help it perform very well on snow and ice. Remember, my buddy with a JK on street all season tires easily out ran not only my TJ with lockers and BFG TAs which are rated for extreme snow and ice duty, but he also out ran our buddy's STI that was running blizzaks, arguably the best dedicated snow and ice tire money can buy. We use the JK to break open trails when we come up on snow as it does so much better then the TJs.

If the Patriot doesn't get much better fuel economy with it's next model, or they significantly cut the price, I don't see the point in Jeep producing it.

 

I'd have to see one come up my driveway in winter.

What's the difference in purchase price?

 

currently, about $2k.

 

how are you coming up with only $2k difference?
could only do this on 2011 models
i just went through build your own on jeep site for pat and unlimited
with 4x4, auto and hard top unlimited came to $28k
on pat with FDII came to just under $21K
WRANGLER UNLIMITED SPORT

$27,955 TotalEstimated Price

PATRIOT SPORT 4X4


$20,545 TotalEstimated Price






Model edit $25,545
WRANGLER UNLIMITED SPORT

Colors edit $0
Black Interior Color $0
Natural Green Pearl Coat Exterior Paint $0
Black Freedom Top® 3-Piece Hard Top $0
Options edit $1,610
Media Center 130 CD/MP3 $0
Cloth Seats with Adjustable Head Restraints $0
16-Inch Styled Steel Wheels $0
P225/75R16 BSW On/Off-Road Tires $0
Normal-Duty Suspension $0
3.8-Liter V6 SMPI Engine $0
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating $0
Monotone Paint $0
4-Speed Automatic Transmission $875
Freedom Top® 3-Piece Modular Hard Top $735
Destination Charge $800

MSRP as Built + Destination $27,955




Model edit $17,695
PATRIOT SPORT 4X4

Colors edit $0
Dark Slate Gray Interior Color $0
Mineral Gray Metallic Clear Coat Exterior Paint $0
Options edit $2,100
Media Center 130 CD/MP3 Radio $0
Premium Cloth Bucket Seats $0
Air Conditioning Bypass $0
2.4-Liter I4 DOHC 16V Dual VVT Engine $0
GVW Rating - 4,575 Pounds $0
Monotone Paint $0
Freedom Drive II Off-Road Group $1,050
Continuously Var. Trans with Off-Road Crawl Ratio $1,050
Destination Charge $750

MSRP as Built + Destination $20,545

 

how are you coming up with only $2k difference

Whoops you're right, my bad. I was comparing a latitude to a sport. But the Wrangler starts at 26k, the Pat with FDII and a/c (arguably a major feature many would miss between the two) is $21k. So a $5k difference. That's a bit more understandable as that'd be about $100 more per month for the Wrangler, and you'll have a much smoother ride in the patriot.

 

We will see the numbers when it comes out, their estimates on mpg and actual mpg I have noticed seem to differ when it comes to a release of a new engine or vehicle. I have a hard time believing that the v6 can get the same mpg as the 4. When i bought my pat, I wanted something cheap and 2k dollars can go a long way when it comes to gas for my pat. As when I made my decision, I thought the wrangler and grand had awful mpgs and the liberty i think looks ugly so i went with the pat.

 

Wrangler is not going to be very close in MPG in real world driving, they are hogs on gas. If you want a serious off road machine, then get the Wrangler. If you want something good on gas for a daily commuter, get the Patriot.

 

A wrangler is a hog on gas but the patriot FDII isn't? Hard to say until the pentastar equipped wrangler is out but they seem to be similar enough now (4mpg) that I don't think I'd come to that conclusion.

 

hard to compare the 2,
right choice for 1 may not be the right choice for others,
for me, daily driving comfort was priority over brute off road capability,
wanted some offroad capability hence the FDII over FDI,
but end of the week/month/year 99% of my driving is on the road.
also when it comes to loading,
sure the pat makes for easier loading/unloading of stuff
whether in the back or on the roof than the wrangler.

 

I went with the riot because I don't venture off-road that much, and we travel a lot, so comfort was a huge factor. Besides, now I have an excuse to go buy a TJ and beat the tar out of it instead of my shiny new riot.

 

When i visit my Dealer last time i was surprised that i have more legroom on the rearseats in a Patriot than in a Wrangler.

 

+1

I found the exact same thing when test driving them both.

 

However; in 2012 when the Pentastar v6 is dropped into the Wrangler, the guestimated fuel economy figures will be 16 city, 23 highway. When compared to the current Pat that's 4 mpg worse in town and it matches the Pat on the highway. Assuming the Wrangler Unlimited would still only command a $2k premium over the Pat, why would you ever buy a FDII equipped Pat?

My 2008 Patriot Sport 4x4 FDI was rated at 21 city, 28 Highway. I usually average 20-22 mpg city and 25-27 highway (lot of hills on my highways here though). So real world on the Wrangler will probably be more like 14-15 city and 19-22 highway or to put it another way, you'll actually get what the current 2011 model is rated for. So while 5mpg may not seem like much, that's a free gallon of gas every 3rd gallon (city). At $3.50 a gallon (and more in the future) that turns into a huge difference for overall operating costs. As everyone else said though, the Patriot was a better fit for my needs. I don't rock crawl or do any serious off-roading so the Wrangler would be way overkill in capability (and price). And to be honest, most people I know that own and drive a Wrangler almost never take them off-road or use even a tenth of their capability. I drive around town and through snow (and the Patriot is a killer snow driving machine!) just like my Wrangler friends...but I s****** every time they bitch about filling them up

 

The Patriot had me sold at 25mpg. Sure, I'm sporting the 4x2 CVT but I need a great daily driver with good storage space (wife, two dogs+accoutrements), that's fun to drive and can handle the occasional heavy snowfall around Chicago. It looks a hell of a lot better than other CSUVs, too. The Wrangler Unlimited is its own thing. It's the tried and true Jeep that goes anywhere and does anything, with that great Jeep attitude and spirit of freedom that we all love. But we also love practicality, and for most Patriot owners, it seems like the satisfaction of "pretty good off-road", "25 mpg" and "classic Jeep styling with hatchback sensibilities" is a sweet-spot, middle-of-the-road compromise that just feels right.

 

the wrangler has more off road ability and towing capacity but at the sacrifice of mileage and total $$$

the patriot has fair off road ability with better mileage for less $$$

It depends on who you are the patriot is a capable off road vehicle but it will never be more then then that due to available aftermarket parts, and design it wasn't designed for the Rubicon, it was a green 4x4....

the wrangler is all about ability and looks... that what it what made for flat out...

I wish i had the unlimited sometimes because of ground clearance, true 4low etc... but i look at what i have been doing lately and the patriot fits my lifestyle. you have to get the closest to what fits your lifestyle and preferences you can afford.

I want a rubicon but I needed the patriot.

 

I want a rubicon but I needed the patriot.

That's an excellent way to put it. I wanted a Pinzgauer 4x4 or 6x6, but they are tough to find in the States. I'm a fan of air cooling too, way less maintenance.

 

One thing i really like about the wrangler is the 6-speed manual, mannn if only mine had that i would be set

 

To the poster MrM: I believe your observation/argument for the Wrangler Unlimited is quite convincing. If you believe you can get similar fuel consumption(or close) to the FD11 Pat with the Wrangler, go for it. The $2000.00 premium paid now will probably come back to you in resale value. It all depends on what you need I guess.

 

Not much has been said about the difference in ride quality between a patriot and a wrangler. I don't know what the unlimiteds are like but I test drove a standard 2 dr wrangler before buying the pat and it was unsettled and a pretty harsh ride all together on city streets. Now I realize that it's a jeep and not built for comfort really, but for someone who doesn't need a serious off road machine, a patriot will be much more comfortable for cruising around town, not to mention long trips. And soft tops can be a pita as well, from my experience...

Edit: I should add however, that I really wanted a wrangler when I got the pat. I hunt, fish, go off road, tow, etc, but I can get by with a 5 speed FD1 patriot for much less money and better fuel economy...

 

Whether the Patriot or the Wrangler is really a matter of personal choice. If I were 25 years younger I would probably say screw the fuel mileage and get the Wrangler. But my 50 something rear end is much happier with the mileage and comfort of the Patriot. I traded from a Cherokee to a Patriot and appreciate the increased mileage and ride comfort.

 

shoot! my 22 something rear end loves my patriot much more then the wrangler haha!! I love the wrangler but i get around 15mpg going downhill with the wind.... my patriot getting 24mpg average and just a little less capable.... it is what it is haha

 

I get 18/19mpg combined with my TJ... And I drove a JK unlimited (my buddies) its quiter with a soft top then my TJ with a hard. Then again I ripped out all the carpeting and added a somewhat loud exhaust...

And ironically, alot of people that put larger engines in the TJs get better fuel economy... I have seen some guys with v8s that get mid/low 20s

 

To the poster regarding the unlimited being a hog on gas, nope, not true. My fdII got the same milage per liter as my jk does.

 

I went the FDII route because I wanted something easy to drive and toss around town, comfortable for my wife on long road trips, yet capable enough to take on some moderate trails when I get a wild hair. I average 20+ mpg with almost all city miles... Driving a Wrangler would have gotten me 25% less fuel economy.

Plus I got my Patriot COMPLETELY LOADED (sans a potentially leaky sunroof) for $24,800... If I got a Wrangler I would have opted for a Rubicon which is $32k+

I thought about the Wrangler Unlimited a lot... But for my needs, the Patriot still won me over.

 

I got the unlimited sport for 30k. Traded my 2010 fd II. Got 14800 for it. Yeah I took a cornholein, but I have a bigger, way more capable rig. I'm not putting down the pat. I still recommend it to lots of people, but just not me.

 

Hi,
$.02 worth from a 9-year TJ Wrangler owner, now Patriot FDII owner. Some reasons I chose a Patriot over a new Wrangler:

1. Okay, a TJ is not a current Wrangler by any means, but the cargo volume numbers on all Wranglers are deceptive in a way: a Wrangler 2 door is fine for carrying tall items -- perfect for dishwashers and Euro clothes washers, for example, but not so hot on length inside. I wanted to sleep in my Wrangler, so I'd remove all passenger seats, and I'd fit between the dash and tailgate on a platform I built, with only minimal scrunching. Thanks in part to the Patriot's shorter hood (transverse engine), I can sleep in the back. The spatial layout is that different. And still see out the back, BTW.

2. The new Wranglers are just so darned bulky for one person (me). 500 lbs. heavier than before, plus bigger in every dimension. It's a lot of years and a big change of philosophy since the small, lightweight Willyses of yore. I just can't justify it to myself, not being too keen on waste in design. If I had to transport a group overland, I'd see it differently.

3. Older and less nimble people can get in and out of a Patriot, while it retains good ground clearance and off-road ability. (My mom is 92, so it was time for me to get responsible).

4. I like ghost town prowling, trail exploring, etc. more than rock crawling for sport. My 4 cylinder TJ was always more than adequate, even when it was the weeniest of 190 jeeps at a Jeep Jamboree weekend. Even on Goler Pass in Death valley and a few other diff-slamming locales. Had a winch, but in 9 years I never used it to get out of a spot on the trail (used it to clear land, instead). Just about any basic 4WD Jeep is pretty amazing, really. I figure the Patriot will handle the job.

It's not perfect, of course, but it's still my rig of choice for now.

 

2. The new Wranglers are just so darned bulky for one person (me). 500 lbs. heavier than before, plus bigger in every dimension. It's a lot of years and a big change of philosophy since the small, lightweight Willyses of yore. I just can't justify it to myself, not being too keen on waste in design. If I had to transport a group overland, I'd see it differently.

You can thank gov mandated safety regulations for that... Cars over the past decade or so have ballooned in weight and size.

 

Can't blame the government for that, if it was true, there would be no more small cars. Yet there are.
Things tend to get bigger because that's what people want.

 

you most certainly can... crash tests have become more and more stringent... With the added safety items like an increase in airbags and using more steal to protect the cockpit from rollovers and side impacts, the cars have become much heavier. Many automakers have been working on new applications for AL and CF to compensate for the weight gain. A car may grow in size, but even the older full sized sedans of the 90s didn't weigh in over 4000 lbs... some sedans now weight the same as old SUVs.

Small cars now adays also weight much more then previous years. I don't know why you think Size and Weight are comparable. An object can increase in mass, and stay the same size.

Example...
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/20/report-ford-targeting-up-to-700-pound-weight-loss-across-lineup/

Ford is looking to trim between 250 and 700 pounds from each of its vehicles by 2017 or 2018. That's an impressive total given the fact that added safety measures and more technology have contributed to the bloated scale-breakers we have today, and an aluminum hood or high strength steel can only make up some of that distance. Engineering Chief Derrick Kuzak tells TDB that "weight reduction starts with new platforms." That means aluminum and carbon fiber chassis components and lighter frames.

 

Size and weight are comparable. Sure, there are more stringent requirements fo safety these days, but does that account for how big everything is getting? Take the Nissan Xterra for example or the Toyota 4Runner. Compared to the original generation, todays versions are just plain bigger as well as heavier. The government didn't make them grow in size, did it? Same story for the Explorer, and many other vehicles.

 

The size increase is comon in the auto biz... the old taurus was once a mid size, and they grew it into a full size. They do this because the name is well known, and once the taurus got to the full size level, the fusion was introduced as a new mid size.

The BMW 3 series used to be the size of the 1 series, they slowly increased the size, to a mid size sedan, and brought the 1 series in to fill the gap...

What you have to understand is, Nameplates will always do this, but the class doesnt. A midsize sedan will always be about the same level, a nameplate may change class though.

A C segment car from the past will be lighter than a current C segment. This is due to the increase in weight from the stiffening of the body. For example. The A pillar on many cars now a days are much stronger and this is due to increased roll over standards. Cars may also have airbags all over the cabin now, where as they used to only be in front of the front seats.

It is a well known issue for the automakers, and they have been fighting it to an extent... because as the government increases safety standards, cars become heavier, but at the same time, the government is increasing fuel economy standards, which conflicts with the cars being so heavy. This is due to the agencies not communicating (or caring).