regfootball

great decision by Chevrolet. Maybe Bolt from the movie could be an ad spokesman. If the range promised is delivered, this may be a bellweather for EV's in general.

the small CUV market has grown so much, it already is splintering into sub groups. MSRP on more typical LT Trax AWD are about 25,300-26,000 and up from there, to even on the verge of 27,000 Most of the Renegade Latitude 4X4 i have built are falling in about the same range. So if you simply come down to small "cute" AWD or 4WD American brand SUV four cylinder 25,000- abouts at start, they are remarkably similar and I easily can see many a shopping comparison from consumers, especially women CUV shoppers

Cheeky indeed. Trax will probably get slaughtered by this thing. Two different customers I think Yes and no. On a primary level, the Trax fits in with the HRv's, CX-3's, etc. However, I think people will cross shop due to 4wd and general price point, and they likely will be classfied into the same size group. They will probably be compared in magazine comparos. You will get shoppers that will go down the ladder from Cherokee due to not being able to afford or want to spend so much and they will look at the Renegade. Of course now the Terrain and Equinox are too big or expensive for some.

chevy wanting to add alum to its trucks yet it just launched an advertising assault talking about how their trucks are all high strength steel.

Cheeky indeed. Trax will probably get slaughtered by this thing.

(edit: down several posts is the review----here http://www.cheersandgears.com/topic/84699-2015-jeep-renegade/page-3#entry763643 ) ----- note: I went to get my first oil change on my new Town and Country and the dship had a new Renegade on the showfloor. After checking it out, I intend to take a test drive soon. I didn't realize it would have the option for a stick, and on both FWD and AWD. Otherwise the 2.4 engine will sell the most since that is how you get an automatic. So this for now is just an impression on sitting in it and seeing it in person, and especially with it right next to the lame Compass, I can tell you what looks cheeky and cartoonish in pictures has a lot more character and meat to it in person. I was rather taken aback by how good a job Jeep did with the look of the vehicle, and in particular the interior and packaging. I was shocked at how well the 'Jeep meets Kia Soul' look fits into the Jeep karma. The price of the vehicle in the show floor was mid twenties for an automatic 4x4 Latitude. I can pretty much say that if the equipment and price is comparable between a Trax and the Renegade, the Renegade crushes the Trax in terms of room and space, style, character, while being darned close on MPG. The interior was pretty darned nice for the price and room abounds. I am 6'-1" and there was at least 4" of headroom left atop my head, front and back. No shortage of girth, plenty of shoulder and hip room. Leg room was most impressive, front and back. Felt completely comfortable in either row, with a minor exception of the second row cushion being a tish low. No worries, the footwell under the front seat allows for a natural sitting position in the rear and 4 people will by nicely comfy at any time in this Jeep. Actually there is not much interior room difference between the Cherokee and Renegade (They actually are on different platforms). I would totally be ok taking a long road trip in this vehicle, sitting in either the front or back. The cargo area is not huge, but not small. Similar to an outlander Sport or the Previous Compass. The interior as a whole is quite well done for having to look 'Jeep' and sell at the low price points. There are some neat details in there in a few spots and overall fits in quite well with the idea of the brand. The Renegade is on the Fiat 500L or X platform (hope it does not have the 500L's reliability rap), and so you can tell why it has similar room and elements in the dash are in similar spots. But there is no way at all you can tell from looking out over the hood. The Jeep has a very blocky and chunk look out the hood and again it fits in with the Jeep karma. Hope to get test drives very soon. I still am more of a sedan guy, but i am intrigued by the 1.4 turbo plus stick in FWD. I know the mpg is a few off the Trax but it is still good for a tall box and to able to shift by one self would be interesting. But i will look into the auto as well, since I am kind of getting tired of shift myself for awhile. The turbo lag on the 500L freaked me out; it should be interesting to see if that is fixed on the Renegade. I think overall the personality of this smaller box vehicle has the potential to be a mainstream hit but also cut into the cult class of vehicles like the Mini Countryman, Juke, etc. I also think it stacks up well to fight off all the likes of Trax, CX-3, HRV, etc that will storm the market soon. Myself after sitting in this Jeep I don't think i would ever have any more interest in the Trax. Since it also feels more spacious than an Escape, I think it may compete a bit with the likes of those, the CX-5, others in that realm as well. I think this thing will be a huge seller to women. Should be interesting to see how it does but i predict it will do quite well. And from checking it out, I believe it will be a really functional vehicle with good space in a small package. And despite the cute look, it still has Jeep going on......Good price and not too bad mpg either. Good job Jeep.

HRV looked like it had mucho room inside it when i saw it at the auto show. But of course its not as girthy or comfy as a crosstour. Oddly enough the market will embrace the HRV and it will destroy crosstour sales. I could see popping for a Crosstour if you went in looking at an Accord and they offered a better deal on the Crosstout just to get rid of them. I'd consider one if the deal was can't miss good, but hey I had an Aztek once so looks is maybe not big with me...... Well my other reason for the LOL is that the Civic 5-door is coming too wow, i thought they let the Fit be the 5 door.........

HRV looked like it had mucho room inside it when i saw it at the auto show. But of course its not as girthy or comfy as a crosstour. Oddly enough the market will embrace the HRV and it will destroy crosstour sales. I could see popping for a Crosstour if you went in looking at an Accord and they offered a better deal on the Crosstour just to get rid of them. I'd consider one if the deal was can't miss good, but hey I had an Aztek once so looks is maybe not big with me......

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/long-wheelbase-cadillac-ats-l-launch-august If i were Cadillac, and the ATS will be dead someday, I would try to make the most of it the next 3-4 years or whatever. I would make the ATS-l the ATS sedan here, replace the interior and fix CUE. And then bring in some powertrains prior to the next car coming in to test them out. I would also work to give the best value in the ATS range as far as packages and equipment for the money. Bring a lot of value to the entry offering and get new owners in the fold set up for the next wave 4-6 years down the road. No wasting any time, just get it done now. Switching to the long WB platform might even allow you to use the CT3 name. http://blogs.youwheel.com/2014/08/01/side-profile-comparison-the-2015-cadillac-ats-vs-ats-l/ if the CTS all wheel drive is the CTS4.....what is the CT6 AWD? CT6-4?

I really am in love with the ATS in either form but no way I can buy one considering the back seat lack of room. With a fam, I gotta have more space. I hope Caddy gives this car a new interior. This is a coupe I would consider otherwise, to eschew a sedan. My notion is always reinforced of how nice a step up the new CTS is for only a bit more money while big discounts on 14's are available. It's still light and not huge, but at least takes care of the back seat issue. I'll get bludgeoned for saying this, but on the sedan, still having the 2.5 available due to mpg it gets vs the turbos, is still a good thing IMO. Even if its sales are not much the mpg of the turbo 4 and v6 are not fabulous. To have one ATS in the stable that can get bigger mpg in case gas tops 4 bucks again soon is nice to have in the back pocket.

glad that you got the light colored interior for the trip. The black interior is very depressing.

last weekend I managed to get a quick test drive in a 4 cylinder AWD Outlander (not Sport) We've seen images of the 2016 updates of this vehicle and it is all noteworthy. Some of the ugliness goes away. Is it a beauty? Still not yet. Mitsubishi promises CVT and drivability upgrades for 2016 as well. But for the 2015, HIGHS -Cabin and interior space -Flexible second row seats. Seatbacks recline in row two, unlike the Sport which do not. -Good space and comfort over the Sport. Six footers in second row quite comfy. -Relatively good mpg for this type of vehicle, which apparently is being met in real world -Very affordable in lower trims for younger families that need space or third row, other similar vehicles are not -Very usable dash layout, and great visibility to the outside all around -Nice gauges and steering wheel -Predictable ride and handling -Mitsubishi standard warranty -Garagable third row vehicle if you have a small garage LOWS -Looks -bland interior, all black, all the time, not really anything visually interesting -The radio actually is uninviting techno wise, and drab to use (was not Rockford Fosgate version) -third row admittedly is limited to small kids mostly -tepid and outdated engine. Slow if you step on it. The four cylinder on this rig should have 20-40 more hp (and embrace new technology) -CVT needs improvements (like it got on the Sport) -corresponding engine drone and noise with CVT -the 2016 can't come soon enough SUMMARY Read the highs and lows and there is not much else to add. This would be a great alternative for a lot of people if it had a more acceptable engine and trans performance. I found out I had driven most of the trip in "Eco" mode. I am not sure if regular mode would make much difference. In any case, if you are willing to live without big power under the hood (or just upgrade to the v6), this could be a good choice if you merely want something with some space, utility, good warranty, and affordable price. I would wonder if the experience with a FWD only version would be a lot better without the extra weight and drag of the AWD system. Getting one of these depends if you want to settle or if you expect more. Depends on your priorities. There isn't much egregious here, but there is nothing compelling either. Maybe the best attributes are the flexible second row seats, and the third row. Special note, the actual selling prices of the Outlander and Sport are sometimes close for equal trims and equipment, or within less than a couple grand. If you like the extra space of the Outlander, it may not cost you much more than a Sport, which is more interesting. If price and warranty are big shopping points for you, the vehicle scores high on those aspects and in that regard could make it purchase worthy.

hehe, i suppose that is possibly it....

FRS / BRZ sales are in the crapper. Better to make the best Camaro you can and make it broad appeal than to develop a new model that will cannibalize from it.

People buy Cadenzas too, that is even more mind boggling.

I never saw one of the new ones that looked good until the other day. It may have been a sport. It was dark in color and all shiny as it was new. It was dusk so the lights looked more interesting. Aside from this lone example, I think these are duds. My test drive of the regular 2.4, I saw nothing about that I found compelling. Interior is garbage. However, these things are selling like hotcakes around here. I see them all over and new ones every day. I can't figure it out. Returning lessees?

beetle meets boxster or 911 shape would be interesting.

hope they don't think they are too good for a limo.

My friend hAs a 14 as a fleet car and he says it gets good mpg like high 20's

that's why I say, why did they get rid of the 2.5? It made 25/36 in the fat 2015, it would have made likely 26/37 or better in the new one, and many of GM's long time customers are turbo averse.....

People aren't aware of how inexpensive these are to buy. And if you check, the mpg is not bad. It also has a 3rd row and a sliding second row so the cargo area is large and versatile. Sure the engine is not bleeding edge or tire smoking.....but now that we are seeing tiny overstressed motors all over these throwbacks may be attractive to those that just want to get around and enjoy the 5/60 BTB and 10-100 Pto warranties that go with it. For the right price and equipment level I would have no problem with one as daily transport as opposed to a midsize sedan. ....local dealer was selling new front drivers for about 19,500.....think of families on a budget that can't afford say, a loaded Highlander. With the good mpg , space , warranty, and general user friendliness, it's hard to get too judgmental about this type of thing not trying to be cutting edge. Compare this to an Equinox for example. Less money, third row, more warranty.... Interesting tidbit. The outlander is larger than the outlander sport but they share a platform and wheelbase. The outlander has always had the 2.4. They just finally added the 2.4 to the outlander sport option sheet. But in the outlander sport, the 2.4 gets noticeably less mpg than it does in the outlander for the sams powertrain more or less.....go figure.

that's the point, they do that as 'business as usual'. GM seldom pony's up to compete for the cutthroat lease and buy business.

well done! a little less 'mojo' but should be a hit nonetheless. and for some reason it has an elemental, basic feel of the suzukis i used to have to try to sell i would bet the cvt version is a decent highway car....

Really no matter what it does it won't unseat Altima, Accord, Camry, and Fusion. But it can move a lot closer. Chevy will have to whore this thing out on 199 leases if it wants to crack the top 4 in the segment. Not a reflection of the car, its a reflection of the typical buyers and their prejudices.

Passat is the benchmark for rear cabin utility. Altima is another car with a good back seat. So is Legacy. Fusion is adequately good. If the Malibu = Fusion in the backseat now, that should be ok. Just a shame with a tiny 1.5 litre motor not needing a v6 engine bay that they can't reapportion space back to where it matters. Saw an early 2000's cab forward Intrepid today. Made me think how ahead of their time those Chrysler cab forward designs were. That Intrepid still looks good today. If GM would pick the base of the front seat up high enough to get your foot under, that is like adding 4-6 inches of legroom because your feet can reside their in a natural position, and your legs can be forward and untwisted. Cruze has it FCOL........I imagine they can't still give this more room inside than the Impala in back. I was thinking about one of the comments of no MT. I would only want to see an MT on this car with the 2.0. With the 1.5 it would be fairly gutless. I've driven the Fusion 1.6 MT and while it does ok once you get it up to 6th gear at highway speed, the rest of the time, its a lot of shifting and doesn't burst the dam with torque otherwise. The Passat TSi is a different story, it has great torque but its a 1.8. I would recommend to Chevy to not bother with a stick unless its a 1.8t or the 2.0t. Regarding the mpg, and going only to the 1.5t. Its epa is only like 1 more mpg than the 2.5. There is a lot of Chevy's buyer base that is turbo averse and i think to keep the NA engine in the lineup for those folks would be a good idea..........regarding the Turbo, it's mpg doesn't go up much vs. the Regal but loses all that power. The Ecoboost 2.0 Taurus has practically the same mpg and is wayyyyyy heavier......for losing the hp and weight and having the 8 speed, the 2.0 should get 24/34 not 22/32..... Maybe Volt II should have been this size and with this body. The hybrid is a great choice, but I would imagine having a plug in opportunity would be even nicer. Make no mistake though, if the pricing and option packaging work out right, this car is a home run. It's perfect for those who want good style like a Fusion but don't want the Fusion or are tired of it. This jumps to the top of my list for sedan midsizers. Maybe I can get into one. How can a new Regal top this? Those who critique the chevy sedan structure too, note, the difference between this and the next Cruze are quite wide. The size is far enough apart, as is the stylizing and power etc. And this still doesn't impede much on Impala. Anyone see, the LTZ trim is no more........why get rid of the LTZ moniker? (edit) something about this car reminds me of the Oldsmobile Auroras.....in character, which is cool.