We have the first photos of the new 2026 Jeep Cherokee, and while I’m in a heated debate with my colleagues about how XJ-ish or not-XJ-ish it looks, what probably matters more to consumers is pricing and the powertrain. The latter will not be a 4.0-liter inline-six, and — I can’t believe I’m going to say this — that’s actually a good thing.
Please forgive any typos going forward, as I’m still shaking off being struck by a lightning bolt thrown by the Jeep gods. You see, in the Jeep world, one doesn’t disparage the Jeep 4.0 straight six, one may only say the following about the hallowed AMC motor: “It’s bulletproof.”
But times have changed since that engine’s 1987 debut, and the world is clamoring for affordable hybrids (2024 Is The Year of the Hybrid). So I’m pleased to say the 2026 Jeep Cherokee is, per Jeep’s press release, offering exactly that. Here’s what the brand has to say about its new machine:
Reimagined from the ground up, the next-generation Jeep Cherokee will redefine North America’s most popular vehicle segment, bringing midsize SUV customers a new, efficient and powerful hybrid propulsion option from Jeep.
“The all-new Jeep Cherokee headlines our efforts to deliver more product, innovation, choice and standard content to customers than ever before,” said Bob Broderdorf, Jeep CEO. “Jeep Cherokee will boast competitive pricing that strikes at the core of the largest vehicle segment and sits perfectly between Jeep Compass and Jeep Grand Cherokee to bolster our winning mainstream lineup.”
That’s the important part of the press release, but in classic Autopian fashion, we managed to get caught up on the part that really doesn’t matter. This bit:
The new Jeep Cherokee respectfully honors its rich history with an innovative eye toward the future as the Jeep brand continues to meet the needs of every driver and every journey. The all-new Jeep Cherokee hybrid joins the brand’s mission to empower customers with freedom to adventure their way, as Jeep offers an entire lineup of vehicles that span industry-leading ICE propulsion systems, plug-in, hybrid and all-electric offerings, all with unmatched Jeep capability and innovation.
And then there was this picture:
Really, it was all the photos and my colleague Matt that got us off track. Matt was originally planning to write the article you’re now reading, but with the following headline options:
- The New Jeep Cherokee Finally Looks Like The Cherokee We All Miss
- The XJ Reborn?
Naturally, I stepped in.
There is no chance that on my (our) website we’re going to write that this looks like the beloved XJ, and we’re for sure not going to call it the “XJ reborn”! This reminds me of that BS Jalopnik article from 2013 when the Jeep Cherokee KL debuted. The article was titled “Six Ways The 2014 Jeep Cherokee Is Better Than The XJ“; I remember thinking that article was bunk, and I’m pretty sure I wrote a really long comment disproving its thesis, though that comment may now be gone?
That article was written by [checks link]… Matt Hardigree! What the heck!?
Anyway, Matt’s pattern of XJ-disrespect ends now. The 2026 Jeep Cherokee doesn’t really look like an XJ. It looks good! But it’s not a “reborn XJ,” and you know what? That’s a good thing.
First, I’ll note that you cannot be a “reborn XJ” without the following:
- A boxy profile. This is, more than anything, what defined the XJ.
- Square headlights
- Solid axles. Cheap lift-ability and articulation/durability is what built the XJ’s reputation among off-roaders.
- A light curb weight
- Small dimensions
- A torquey, simple motor
- Extreme reliability
- Horrible fuel economy
I can’t say anything about the new Cherokee’s reliability, and we don’t know its dimensions/weight yet but I can tell you they will almost certainly be larger than the XJ’s. What’s most important, and the main reason I have “Maybe That’s A Good Thing” on the end of my headline is that last point. The Jeep Cherokee XJ got terrible fuel economy. And I know, XJ diehards like myself will sometimes say things like “My five-speed got 21 MPG on the highway once!”
But let’s be honest — that’s pathetic.
This new Jeep Cherokee looks far too sleek and aerodynamic to really feel like a true XJ “reborn,” but that’s good, and with a hybrid powertrain, I am certain it will wipe the floor with the XJ’s fuel efficiency. And I bet there will be some decent off-road capability to go along with it!
That’s the thing about the rather hideous outgoing Jeep Cherokee KL: No, it didn’t have the Jeep XJ’s looks or its geometry or its solid axles, but it had a great traction control system that made the XJ’s open differential look downright pathetic in certain situations.
An experienced off-roader can oftentimes get by with momentum, but for the layperson, in many situations, the KL — and probably this new Cherokee — will see more capable simply because it can put power to the ground.
I’m hoping the new vehicle gets a locker like the outgoing Cherokee, and I’m looking forward to taking it off-road and not having to empty my bank account to do so.
It won’t be the old XJ, but that’s a good thing. Trying to chase something as legendary as the old XJ isn’t the move in 2025. Hybrid is the move.
Plus, Jeep already makes the old XJ: It’s called the Jeep Wrangler four-door.
[Ed note: I dunno, looks like an XJ to me. Upright grille, forward-angled d-pillar, long hood. – MH]
It’s not ugly, but I’m one of those weirdos who didn’t think that the last Cherokee was actually ugly. At least, it was no worse than many other modern cars. The blue and black on that ’26 model looks nice, but to be honest, Alpine does blue and black way better (plus, their cars are more useful/desirable to me personally, so I’m obviously biased).
Stellantis would have to abduct a dozen senior engineers each from Toyota and Honda, and task them with making a Jeep product at least as reliable those brand’s cars before I’d ever venture owning one myself. I really LIKE the way a stock XJ looks, and could live with the crappy mileage given how few miles I drive these days, but I’ve had SO MANY friends who gleefully bought an 80s/90s/00s Jeep vehicle and lived to regret it profoundly.
I’m too old and emotionally weak to knowingly inflict that kind of misery on myself.
When my sister lived in Seattle, her XJ (4.0/auto) got aboooout 13-14 MPG. Also, would overheat in heavy traffic. She had sold her previous car to me (Tracker 2.0/5 speed) which at the time got around 24 mpg in Seattle. Since I lived way out in the sticks, I would manage about 30 out of the Tracker.
Both are still on the road, but arguably the Jeep might get better mileage than my poor Tracker now, considering the 100k more miles I’ve piled on the poor thing, and the enormous M/T tires I squeezed under it.
“Plus, Jeep already makes the old XJ: It’s called the Jeep Wrangler four-door.”
This may be the smartest, most mature statement in the whole article. I had an XJ and loved it (1993 4D Country 4L with a 5 speed). I also had a TJ (03 4L 5spd) and a 4 door JK (15 V6 6Spd). The 4D JK was essentially a reborn XJ with a bit more wind noise. And that’s one reason why you see them all over. It’s just a simple, functional, rough and ready vehicle – and that essentially was what was great about the XJ.
So when I went to work for Peace Corps Dominican Republic in 1989, they had three Jeep Cherokees and two Nissan Patrols. Both the Nissan’s had been rolled, looked awful, but ran just great. The Jeeps kept burning up plastic parts in the engine bay and were not reliable. I had planned to buy a Jeep for a personal vehicle but given what I saw I got a 1990 4 Runner which my former next door neighbor is still driving! I’m not anti-Jeep – I owned a ’61 wagon, a ’64 Wagoneer and currently have a 2015 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Hard Rock.
The XJ kinda sucked. There I said it, and I’m not trolling the true believers. It just kinda sucked. The driving position sucked. The interior was cheap, even the limited with leather, that sucked. It was cramped inside. Only slightly larger than a TJ Wrangler inside, couldn’t really carry much more cargo. The big plus of the XJ is it was cheap for a while. Now, they’ve gone collectible, and honestly, just a buy the FJ60 for $30k. A new XJ just needs to be as good as the RAV4, and unlike most Jeep products, it needs to attempt to be reliable. I say attempt, because it’s highly unlikely they’ll actually build a vehicle that just works.
Fucking what? Have you ever driven one?
I’ve owned a 1996, 1998, and a 2001 XJ. They suck. Yeah, you can spend $15k on a new suspension to give them ground clearance, but generally, they suck. I’m just tired of people acting like the XJ is the holy grail of the offroad world. They were fine when they were cheap, but they do suck.
The original XJ? Wasn’t that like a pretty ground breaking SUV at the time it was released with the refinement and off-road capabilities?
I guess maybe towards the end of the production run it was pretty long in the tooth compared to updated competition like the 4Runner and Pathfinder (when it was still good).
What. The only driving difference between a 60 series Land Cruiser and an XJ Cherokee is the Land Cruiser is even slower and less efficient. I owned an early 80 series with the old 3FE, and it was the slowest, least efficient vehicle I’ve ever owned. Robust and capable? You bet. But it was as thirsty as my 454 3/4 ton Chevy, and slower than my Tracker. The interior was made out of the same shitty 90’s plastics as the rest of them, with cardboard backed door cards. I sold that Land Cruiser (for 5x what I bought it for lol) so I could put money into other projects. If you asked me if I’d prefer a decent Cherokee or a decent 60/80 series Land Cruiser, I’d pick the Cherokee any day.
But, the FJ60 has more clearance, and can fit more stuff. The XJ is small, and has zero ground clearance, unless you decide to spend $$$ on suspension upgrades to fit larger tires, upgrade the axles, and then you’ll want to swap out the wheezing 4.0 engine for a stroker to get some power back. If you like doing that, go for it, I’m just saying if you’re going to buy a collectible solid axle truck, the XJ sucks. I’ve owned both, I’d never put any money into an XJ. At this point, square body Suburbans make more sense.
Comparing modern cars to older cars is almost apples and oranges. There is so much more going on that they will never ever be anything close to the same. They’re insanely more powerful yet completely unengaging to drive. XJs were from a time when we all wanted more power and couldn’t have it now we have power and long for the cars that made us want more power. They’re incomparable.
I hope they’re not hiding the tail end for a reason. The KL’s was pretty rough and current GC, while not terrible, feels off.
This looks an awful lot like the current Grand Cherokee, no? Which is fine, I really like the GC. But the two models have always been very stylistically different so I’m surprised.
This doesn’t look XJ to me at all, just another fine looking new Jeep crossover, so whatever. I am confused about how the company that built/builds the Wrangler, Challenger, and Fiat 500 is somehow seemingly oblivious to the design capital in a proper XJ shape…idk.
Meh, I think they had the looks right with the Patriot, round headlights but nice square body, I know a size smaller. Even the Renegade was boxier than this, this looks like a Subaru Forester cosplaying as a Jeep. They could’ve done like Hyundai and the Ioniq 5 and given it some proper square looking headlights with cool halos.
Also repeating what others have said, Cherokee needs to go, unless whatever proceeds for this and the Grand go to the actual Cherokee nation, or they offer all nation members to be able to buy these at cost.
And to the point of the name, if you’re not going to pay actual homage to the Cherokee vehicle name, then why use it? It’s like Chevy with the Blazer, just wasting it. Fans of the original will be annoyed, people who are oblivious to the legacy of the name are well, oblivious, could name it the Jeep NatureValleyTrailScout and they’d be like, ok, I can drive that to Trader Joe’s no problem.
I had a Blazer as my first vehicle. I’m not annoyed that Chevy is using the name on two different crossovers.
I truly dont understand why people get wrapped up in drama about car names
I struggle with how far is okay to go with indigenous names. On one hand, the majority of US states are tied to native names. In many places, the majority of towns and counties have some ties to their original names. But the next level is using those names for profit, which includes sports teams…and cars like this. I’d argue that Cherokee as a car name isn’t much different than Cherokee as an aircraft name (ie, one of the most long-running and successful small planes of all time) — that is, at this point it’s taken on a life of its own, separate and apart from its origins.
The acid test for me might be “Would I drive this through Cherokee, NC, without feeling just a little bit weird?” No, I don’t think I could. And I honestly never thought about that until now. Would a small contribution towards indigenous education or culture make me feel better? Probably not, I can do that on my own. But the gesture from Stellantis might be nice, I guess.
Have you been to the indigenous museum in Cherokee, NC? It’s rad. “Here are these vintage photos of the people of Cherokee selling dream catchers and other crap. Yes, none of that was part of our culture, but dumbass tourists demanded it, so we sold it to them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ “
I’ve discussed this subject with some others who are more sensitive than I am and their opinion was, essentially, as long as it’s not (even remotely) linked in a derogatory way, it’s probably ok.
For example, the famous Ski Resort in Lake Tahoe, formerly known as Squaw Valley, was changed due to the word commonly defined as a bad name for a woman. But, digging into it, even the native Tribes that used that word didn’t technically consider it to be derogatory, but rather just a common name for a woman in their language. However, because its common meaning has changed over the years, I don’t blame the Ski Resort for changing it.
In this case, I don’t see Cherokee as a bad name. Nor Apache (especially given its context of being a badass piece of military machinery). Nor do I see Chiefs as a bad name for a sports club. But certainly Redskins and Indians don’t pass the sniff test this day and age, it would seem!
So my position is as long as you’re celebrating or honoring the name, I feel it should be ok. And our whole country is built on Capitalism, so considering banning use of a word linked to profiteering would seemingly rule out our entire language! Plus, I consider the discontinuing usage of these words as more of disservice to our country’s history than not.
The Cherokee hasn’t been handsome in a couple decades and this is another swing and a miss.
It’s not offensive but it looks 10 years old right out of the gate. Expect white ones with base/small wheels at your local Hertz lot I guess.
No modern day manufacturer does “looks like the base model” as well as Stellantis. The base model Charger looks like it would have AM/FM radio and painted bumpers as an option.
And I know, XJ diehards like myself will sometimes say things like “My five-speed got 21 MPG on the highway once!”
I regularly got 20 mpg on the highway in my 4AT SelecTrak equipped Up Country XJ so I can absolutely see 21 mpg, especially in a 5MT I4 2WD XJ.
If you didn’t get 20 mpg you were probably speeding.