Jeep Renegade
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
I dunno /o/ it's growing on me, FCA or not it's been getting pretty great reviews, so what's the consensus here?
No one? I think it's best attribute is that it looks good whether it's made for the street like this Chinese special edition...
>>13895365
or for off-roading
>>13895257
Subaru crossteck is more capable on and off road and actually comes standard with AWD.
>>13895381
>Subaru crossteck is more capable on and off road
[citation needed]
>>13895381
>CVT
>capable of anything other than shitting itself
please, the trim to get is the Sport with the 1.4T and 6 speed manny tranny, way more tuning potential than that abomination
>>13895406
Standard cross teck comes with more ground clearance and symmetrical AWD. Meanwhile standard fiat panda, I mean jeep renegade comes with less clearance and FWD, you have to pay more if you actually want to be able to go off road
>>13895257
FCA a shit. srs brah worked at a large dealership
Alfa is fucking cool tho not gonna lie. Dat Quadrifoglio
>>13895443
>FCA a shit. srs brah worked at a large dealership
>>13895425
>Standard cross teck comes with more ground clearance
Marginally. And a worse ramp over angle.
>and symmetrical AWD
Redundant, especially when the renegade comes with a lockable 4x4.
Again;
>Subaru crossteck is more capable on and off road
[citation needed]
>>13895370
>photoshopping this hard
It can only take a 2 inch lift because >lolFCAsuspension too.
>>13895463
I personally would only be interested in lowering it and tuning the fuck out of it, I hear them 1.4 multi-aire tarbo engines make a mean sound for a 4 pot
>>13895257
>off roading a fiat 500x
why
>>13895479
>2 inch lift
try harder faggot
>>13895463
why the fuck not?
>>13895257
If the phrase 'offroad' is anywhere in your vocabulary when considering this, the trailhawk trim is the only thing worth considering, and even then, you could do a lot better for the money if AWD/off-road worthiness is your primary concern
The back seats are basically worthless. No one is ever going to fit in them, and I imagine it would be fairly impractical in day to day use.
Build quality is typical Chrysler, cheap. It gives me the exact same sort of feeling I get when I sit in a town and country. Looks great on the show room floor, and in 2 years it will be falling apart.
It actually makes more sense in the FWD configuration with the 1.4L turbo engine as a zippy little mall crawling DD that would see most of it's time in city traffic, which I am sure given most of Jeep's customer base these days, is exactly what most of them will end up being
>>13895515
>The back seats are basically worthless. No one is ever going to fit in them, and I imagine it would be fairly impractical in day to day use.
not if you have young kids
>Build quality is typical Chrysler, cheap.
no shit, I've owned them before but they weren't as bad as the GMs my family suffered through
and the only reason why I would even consider this car is for the fact that it's a small wagon with a small displacement turbo 4 with AWD and a 6 speed, I don't think any of the competitors in the segment offer that configuration
>>13895543
>not if you have young kids
Still, I'd like my back seats to be able to do more than just handle a 4 year old. The CR-V, RAV-4, and escape all have more usable interior space than the Jeep
>no shit, I've owned them before but they weren't as bad as the GMs my family suffered through
>and the only reason why I would even consider this car is for the fact that it's a small wagon with a small displacement turbo 4 with AWD and a 6 speed, I don't think any of the competitors in the segment offer that configuration
As a used car salesman who deals with these brands every day man, let me tell you, even GM is light years ahead of FCA in built quality and reliability right now. And if you are getting it for the motor and 6 speed, hell, the only trim anyone even likes on this thing is the trailhawk, which comes with the 2.4L and the 9 speed auto ONLY, you can't get the turbo or a manual. If you want that, then you are stuck getting a base model AWD just for the engine and tranny choice you want. At that point, if you want a sporty, practical, turbo car with a stick, why not a Fiesta/Focus ST? Do you HAVE TO HAVE awd?
If you do, the AWD Mini Countryman S would probably be a better car long term. Or just work harder and get a Golf R
>>13895257
shitty little c u c k piece of Chrysler shit
just another mallcrawler special from the faggots who brought you the Patriot, Compass, Commander, etc.
It's proof that marketing can sell anything, and that poor marketing can kill anything.
>>13895609
how would a Mini Countrymen be a better buy? their reliability is shit as well, except the difference being MOPAR parts are a hell of a lot cheaper than BMW/Mini parts, or a fucking Golf for that matter, and why does it need to have anything other than the power train/drivetrain configuration that I want? if I want a Renegade Sport to have that configuration why the fuck wouldn't I buy it?
>>13895635
>hmm, maybe not a renegade
>maybe a mini countryman?
holy shit, why do you want a shitty car so bad?
>>13895635
Because, like 90% of the people I deal with who have a modern Chrysler product, the car will fall to shit in short order, you will end up hating it, the depreciation will kick you in the dick so hard you see stars, and the sporty engine/tranny combination will get old in about 6 months, and you will end up wishing you had got a more practical car.
And granted, the Mini is fairly shit, but I would take a Golf R over anything made by Chrysler in the last 10 years.
>>13895643
>it's shit because I say so
>>13895655
then what wagon would you suggest instead that has AWD, turbo 4 and a 6 speed that doesn't have a Boxer 4 in it?
>>13895655
You forget, /o/ is not 90% of the people you deal with lol. Your statement is true among people who aren't as autistic as the anon here
>>13895655
Tbh you are a Benz enthusiast, so I don't see why you're complaining about depreciation and things falling to shit
>>13895702
If it's what you want, then get it man. You asked what the consensus was, and was just chipping in on my opinion based on personal experience. If you are calling the renegade a 'wagon', then my choice is what I said above, I'd get a used Golf R, even though I know it prices above what you will be able to get a new Renegade for.
>>13895708
true enough point anon
>>13895731
I buy mine used, and at current, I have 4 Mercs, all of which aren't going to shit, and have cost me less to own, combined, in the last 4 years than a fucking 96 Chevy blazer cost me in 10 months.
>>13895756
So you're a smart shopper and you cherry picked well maintained models that have already depreciated. Doesn't speak anything for the brand,though.
>>13895781
Luxury cars, with the exception of Lexus, all depreciate like boat anchors. Even Acura. It's nothing specific to Mercedes. If you want luxury and NOT a swift kick in the dick from depreciation, it's Lexus all day every day. The trade off is they won't, nor will they likely ever, have anything that will be as sporty as AMG/M Series/Audi S line cars. Granted, pretty much everything they make is comfy as fuck
As far as quality, /o/ just shits on Merc's because most of the time, their experience is with some Chrysler-era car that was owned by a basketball american and run into the ground before he traded it off to become some poor saps money pit. BMW catches a lot of this same sort of flack too.
And any smart shopper is going to target the models that hold up well, especially if you are the type of person that holds on to a car for a while. Yes, you are right, Mercedes rubs my dick in all the right ways, but they do make damn rugged cars that are, on the whole, pretty damn reliable. It's a common sight to see people trading in old E/C Classes with 200K+ that are still chugging right along.
>>13895781
only retards buy off brand, and not specific models.
There are good F-150s, there are bad F-150s. There are good Camrys, there are bad Camrys.
To lump in engineering from a different time (using 'brand') into a car that did not utilize said engineering or expertise, is just a way to cover up the fact that some years had poorly designed models.
There is no innocent car manufacturer.
>>13895838
>ISF
>RCF
>GSF
>LFA
And that last one is more "sporty" than anything Germany has made in the last decade.
>>13896092
-LFA is a one off super car with no cup holders, and not at all indicative of the Lexus brand as a whole. Yes, it's a godly car, but not anything the average consumer will ever buy
-RC-F/IS-F/GS-F (driven all of them at this point) are no where NEAR the same league of sportiness as an AMG/M Series car. The RC-F is probably the most disappointing car I drove this year. And fake quad pipes are worse than playing engine noise through the speakers
