People just can’t seem to get enough of beefed-up crossovers and SUVs. Sure, all-terrain tires won’t ride as nicely or get the same fuel economy as highway tires, but chunky meats and a little extra clearance look cool. Making a return to this sub-segment, the Jeep Grand Cherokee Trailhawk is back, and it comes with some interesting trade-offs over the old one.
If you’re thinking, “Hang on, wasn’t there a Grand Cherokee Trailhawk last year?” you’d be right. Immediately distinguishable thanks to its bright blue towing hooks and chunky sidewalls, the plug-in hybrid 4xe Trailhawk held a lot of promise. Off-road capability and 26 miles of range for running errands around town on silent electric power. Early reviews were pretty good, with road testers lauding the ride quality and level of equipment. There was just one problem, though, and it took some time to emerge.
In September 2024, a recall was issued covering plug-in hybrid Grand Cherokees produced through Nov. 16, 2023. The problem? Bad batteries, and not the benign kind either. The separator material that prevents the electrodes from shorting had been reportedly damaged in some cells, resulting in multiple reports of fires. Thermal runaway isn’t fun. Just over 13 months later, another recall landed, this time covering some 36,840 more Grand Cherokee 4xe models built between July 19, 2023 and March 3, 2025 for the exact same problem. If that wasn’t enough, another recall was issued for engine failure on 36,840 Grand Cherokee 4xes built between July 19, 2023 and Aug. 3, 2025. Around the same time, Jeep announced the discontinuation of its 4xe plug-in hybrids, and thus, the Grand Cherokee Trailhawk. There’s no proof those events are related, but man, talk about timing.
As such, the new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk skips high-voltage electrification and adopts the two-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine found in other new Grand Cherokees. Pumping out 324 horsepower and 332 lb.-ft. of torque, it enters the game with a huge output deficit over the old electrified Trailhawk. We’re talking a deficit of 51 horsepower and 138 lb.-ft. of torque. Mind you, it does still have a licence-built eight-speed automatic gearbox, so it should still get out of its own way. The real party piece lies downstream anyway.
On the subject of off-road hardware, the Grand Cherokee Trailhawk diverges from most of its two-row unibody SUV competition thanks to the addition of a two-speed transfer case with proper low range. It lets drivers select a much shorter output ratio, multiplying torque substantially across all gears for rock crawling, steep hills, and other tricky scenarios where gearing specified to work nicely on the highway might come up short. Of course, a four-wheel-drive system is usually only as good as its differentials, so the rear axle gets a limited-slip unit. Oh, and since limited-slip differentials only effectively distribute torque if a tire can put it down, a set of 30.5-inch Goodyear Wrangler Territory All-Terrains comes standard.
So then, what about angles and clearance? The Grand Cherokee Trailhawk does come standard with air suspension that can jack this SUV all the way up to 11.4 inches of ground clearance. In its highest setting, Jeep says that’s good for 36 degrees of approach angle, 24.4 degrees of breakover angle, and 30.3 degrees of departure angle. That’s a step down in capability from the 38, 28, and 40-degree respective figures of a Land Rover Defender 110 with air suspension, but it still blows many SUVs out of the water. A 4Runner simply can’t touch the Grand Cherokee Trailhawk’s approach angle, and falls slightly short in breakover and departure angles. Once you run out of breakover angle, you’ll probably be fairly thankful for the Trailhawk’s skid plate system. Six in total cover the engine, transmission, transfer case, fuel tank, and several suspension components.
Beyond the high-clearance front bumper and tow hooks, the only other major functional new toy standard on the new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk is an upgraded camera system. The headline piece here is a forward-facing camera with tire trajectory overlays that can act as a second spotter, but the washer system for the backup camera will probably see more use in the real world.
While Jeep hasn’t announced pricing for the new Grand Cherokee Trailhawk, we can take an educated guess based on standard levels of equipment. The presence of Nappa leather upholstery indicates that it’ll likely sit somewhere around the Limited Reserve trim, which retails for $53,910. Could be above, could be below. We’ll know a lot more later this year, when the ruggedized Grand Cherokee goes on sale. Either way, it should be cheaper than the old $67,980 4xe Trailhawk, and that’s a good thing.
Top graphic image: Jeep
So this “good reason” is that Stellantis is just giving up on hybrid? Its a reason, I’m not sure its good though.
Its a good reason because they have no idea how to build a PHEV properly.
I would have expected a bit more snark in the title. But maybe this isn’t the old lightbulb factory afterall.
I 4 turbo durability worries me. not that regular FCA quality is stellar
I would want the option of the 3.6 Pentastar.
It’s a good thing because it doesn’t have the troublesome 4XE system tied to it, but it’s still bad because it has Chrysler air-suspension still.
I’m sure it’ll get the cam & lifter eating Hemi at some point, so it can rev to nearly 4,000 rpm to produce its peak torque, which is apparently what off roaders want.
I don’t even vaguely trust this powertrain and don’t really understand why it exists. Is it so they can sell it in more European markets? I’ll just assume that’s it. Anyway, while I’m the furthest thing from one of those BUT MUH DISPLACEMENT guys I’m really not sure why they didn’t just stick with the Pentastar for this trim.
The Hurricane 4 won’t be any more efficient in practice, it sounds worse, and 162 Stellantis horsepower per liter seems like a great recipe for getting stranded mid adventure. Literally no one asked for a 4 cylinder in the Grand Cherokee. I have to imagine that this was a Tavares joint that was too far along to try to put back in the bottle.
And it may be too far along to add the GC to the brilliant, not at all shortsighted HEMI ALL THE THINGS plan as well…since by the time they’ve got that working the administration will be changing and almost certainly not into the “let’s pollute as much as possible to own the libs” agenda. Woof.
In conclusion: just buy a Passport.
Nobody will buy these in Europe. The last Grand Cherokee seen in any sort of meaningful numbers was the WK2 with the VM Motori V6 diesel.
This can tackle a rugged trail. In between dealer trips, that is.
I’m not sure I understand how the pricetag works, but it seems steep for a Jeep Royale with Cheese.
I think that Stellantis needs to do what Volvo did in the 90s and have a 5 cylinder version of the hurricane engine which slots in-between the 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder versions. Grand Cherokees, Pacificas, base model Ram 1500s, Promasters.. I think that’s where the 5 cylinder version would be a good idea, if it could fit transverse and longitudinal. It could share so much NRE, production tooling, and parts…not to mention 5 cylinders can make a great exhaust note (if done correctly).
100% they should’ve.
The 5-cylinder would’ve been a GREAT base engine in the half ton Ram’s, and a great upsell for the Grand Cherokee/used as the base engine in the Grand Cherokee L.
Volvo’s result didn’t lead to comments of “power of a 4 with fuel consumption of a 6” like GM’s did.
A 5-cyl, done well, would be a nice goldilocks engine.
Looking across to what GM learnt, from their foray, a big 2.7L-Turbo-4 seems to have been received rather well.
Agreed. The GM 2.7 is a much better engine vs what most people expected. I think that the difference between the GM Atlas 4/5/6 is that those engines were physically a little too big to be used across more product (transverse). Stellantis is putting hurricane 4’s in transverse applications. The Atlas engines were also a victim of the time too…in the early 2000s people wanted 6 cylinders or a V8 for all the applications they put the Atlas in, no way GM would have been successful at a turbo 4 or 5 cylinder Atlas engine in a Silverado 1500 back then…but now there are lots of turbo I-4’s, I-6’s, V6’s. Now we all are cool with inline turbo engines in applications we didn’t expect before.
I do think that the GM Atlas engine didn’t get the respect it deserved though, they were mechanically very good. It’s just they were put in platforms with other issues.
I’m sure they’ll be throwing a hemi in there any day now to make up for that lack of power
Even the boring 5.7 liter Hemi in the Grand Cherokee was a blast to drive when you pushed the accelerator down all the way. I would almost always giggle when it downshifted, rocked me back into the seat and the engine roared.