![]() As for Freedom Drive II, it returns a dismal 21 mpg combined (20/23). Adding Freedom Drive I results in 22 mpg combined (20/26) with the six-speed automatic and 24 mpg combined (22/27) with the manual. The five-speed manual improves to 25 mpg combined (23/29). With front-wheel drive, the 2.4-liter Patriot yields an EPA-estimated 23 mpg combined (21 city/28 highway) when paired with the six-speed automatic. If you don't mind shifting your own gears, the manual version does slightly better at 26 mpg combined (23/30). The exception to this rule is the Freedom Drive II off-road package, which combines the 2.4 with a unique CVT that features simulated low-range gearing.Īccording to EPA estimates, the 2.0-liter Patriot returns 24 mpg combined (22 city/26 highway) with the CVT, a disappointing result given the engine's modest output. The optional automatic for the 2.0-liter Patriot is a CVT, while the 2.4-liter engine is offered with a six-speed conventional automatic. The uplevel engine is a 2.4-liter four-cylinder rated at 172 hp and 165 lb-ft of torque it's available on front-wheel-drive Patriots and required with either Freedom Drive I all-wheel drive or Freedom Drive II.Ī five-speed manual is the default transmission for both engines. The base engine is a 2.0-liter four-cylinder producing 158 horsepower and 141 pound-feet of torque, and can only be had with front-wheel drive. The 2016 Patriot offers a variety of powertrain configurations. Otherwise, this segment is full of superior crossovers, whether at the Jeep dealership or elsewhere. If you must have a new Jeep and you're on a shoestring budget, the 2016 Jeep Patriot will fill the bill. We'd also recommend the entry-level crossovers from other brands, including the Honda HR-V and the Mazda CX-3. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's worth every penny. One of the alternatives we'd consider is Jeep's newest compact offering, the Renegade, which is better looking, more fun to drive, more practical and safer to boot. The upgraded 2.4-liter engine with the six-speed automatic is a more satisfying pairing, and the Patriot is one of a dwindling number of SUVs to offer a manual transmission - but if you want the off-road ability of Freedom Drive II, you're stuck with the CVT.Īnd if you're going to give up that off-road ability, you may as well give up on the Patriot, because the competition is roundly better. ![]() CVTs have come a long way in the past few years, but the Patriot's has not, as it continues to rob both power and fuel economy from whichever engine it's hooked to. Unfortunately, this package makes the Patriot considerably less affordable, and it also comes with the power-sapping continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT). We can't help but admire the 2016 Jeep Patriot's off-road ability when equipped with the Freedom Drive II Off-Road Group. But there are better options for a subcompact crossover SUV. Why? We imagine it's because the Jeep name is popular with consumers, and the Patriot is the least expensive way to put a new Jeep in your driveway, especially if you're willing to live without things like power windows and air-conditioning. Tests of its performance at the low speeds at which whiplash injuries are often caused showed good performance with collisions avoided or mitigated at all test speeds.The Jeep Patriot is among the last vestiges of the Bad Old Days at Chrysler, and yet it continues to be a surprisingly strong seller. The Compass has a standard-fit autonomous emergency braking system. A geometric assessment of the rear seats also indicated good whiplash protection for occupants sat there. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision. However, in the more severe side pole impact, protection of the chest was rated as poor, based on high rib compressions, although these remained lower than the values at which the risk of fatal injuries becomes unacceptably high. In the side barrier test, protection of all critical body areas was good and full points were scored. Chest protection for the rear passenger was rated as marginal, based on dummy readings of chest compression, but that of other parts of the body was good or adequate. In the full-width rigid-barrier test, protection of the driver was good. Protection of the front passenger was good for all critical body areas. Jeep showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the driver and passenger. The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal offset test.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |