In something of an ironic twist for an off-road brand, Jeep has had trouble figuring out which path to take lately. Jeep was late to the soft-roader party last decade, and got off to an “interesting” start when a focus group (allegedly) indicated the need for a Patriot to appeal to men and a Compass for the ladies. Most companies would have simply picked one, but the temptation to attract female shoppers to an overtly masculine brand proved too strong and Jeep decided to make both. The result is a product line that offers two similarly-priced and similarly-capable vehicles. This might have been a passable set of circumstances, had the Compass not been saddled with both a cartoonish exterior and interior plastics that even Rubbermaid would have rejected. Instead, the Compass became a symbol of how lost the go-anywhere brand had become. But after a Fiat-led makeover, an updated 2011 Compass is making a bid to rescue Jeep’s small CUV reputation… is it up to the task?

In a testament to what a hot mess the original Compass was, several Chrysler employees freely admit the “Lady Patriot” was a verruca that should have been sliced off the corporate heel back in 2007. And Chrysler has been trying hard to make a silk purse out of the plastic ear ever since. After only two years on sale, the Compass received a discount nip/tuck which did nothing for sales, which slid to 11,739 in 2009, a paltry 30% of 2007 sales (Patriot volume has remained somewhat stable). To stem the tide, the Compass received yet another much-needed update for 2011. If this timing seems odd to you, you are not alone. Two facelifts in just over four years is unusual enough for a domestic brand, but the all-new Compass is widely expected to debut in only 2 years giving this ‘lift a short life expectancy as well. Is it worth it? Check back this time next year.

The exterior re-design takes the Compass from an unholy union of a Wranger and Dodge Caliber to an 8/10ths scale Grand Cherokee. Although striking, the resemblance to the Grand Cherokee makes perfect sense as the new GC is by far Chrysler’s hottest product in terms of sales and media success. Possibly proving that some of the JGC’s halo might just rub off on the slowest-selling Jeep, the Grand Cherokee’s mini-me received unexpected styling praises from my usual Friday lunch group. Out back are some new LED tail lamps marking about the only change to the exterior, apart from the rhinoplasty. Unfortunately this means the side profile of the Compass still looks un-Jeep-like and the vertical rear door handles remain an awkward form of ingress. But taken as a whole the Compass is no longer a car you need to hide from your friends and neighbors.

While the interior still lags behind the snazzy new Kia Sportage, it is finally up to par with the American and Japanese competition in terms of materials and fit-and-finish. Interior changes wrought in 2011 are: new seating surfaces with improved padding, tweaked plastics, new armrests, the new corporate tiller, new infotainment options and some new switch gear. The new steering wheel ditches the rubbery plastic feel of the 2010 model and dispenses with the silly cruise control stalk in favor of easy-to-use wheel-mounted controls. Like other Chrysler products, the radio controls remain on the back of the steering wheel where you can’t see them. This arrangement takes some getting used to but ends up being practical, ensuring your eyes are on the road while fiddling with your tunes. While the dash design still has the feel of an economy car (because it borrows heavily from the Dodge Caliber), the parts of the car that you actually touch are finally (and honestly) a notch above the Ford Escape, my personal benchmark for comparison. I might even say the revised interior is a touch better than the 2011 Escape overall, but that’s just my opinion.

When it comes to gadgets, it is obvious the budget for renovation was small. Conspicuously absent on our $26,570 (as equipped) Compass Latitude 4×4 tester were a Bluetooth speaker phone and Apple iPod/iPhone interface. Call me picky, but I tend to expect a car with a sticker this high to give me Bluetooth and some Apple-love. Our “Latitude” tester is the mid-line trim between the Sport and Limited models so it seems doubly odd that these are not standard features on an “up-level” trim. Neither were these niceties included in the $2,300 “customer preferred” package our tester came with, which includes: A/C, power mirrors, power windows, height adjustable seats, power locks, keyless entry, heated front seats, a 110V inverter, and leather wrapped steering wheel with audio controls. Our tester also wore the $650 “convenience package” which included: an alarm, front side airbags, trip computer, garage door opener and an auto-dimming rearview mirror with microphone. (The irony of a microphone without Bluetooth was not lost on us). Buyers need to either pony up $375 or step up to the Limited (base price of $24,295) in order to get some Bluetooth phone-love.

The base radio and speaker equipment are adequate for people who need basic entertainment; for others, stepping up to the “Media center 430” gets you a 6.5-inch touch screen and the ability to browse and play your tunes off USB flash drives. Fortunately we had no problem playing iTunes AAC files on the head unit. A further bump up to the 430N model (only available in the Limited) gets you the same head unit with a Garmin designed navigation system on the 6.5-inch screen. Moving up the option list to the more expensive head units does nothing to the stock speakers however, so if you are looking for a bit more boom, a Boston Acoustics speaker system is also available. The navigation system is easy to use but lacks the voice command ability for destination entry that Ford’s SYNC systems offer. Buyers should beware that in order to get the integrated flip-down “tailgate boombox” pushed heavily on Jeep’s web page, one has to opt for the steep $1,295 “sun and sound” package which includes a moonroof and those Boston Acoustics speakers I mentioned. Despite the gadget options being somewhat limited, package costs can add up rapidly with the fully-loaded Compass limited ringing in at $31,150 (just a whisker away from a Grand Cherokee Laredo) so shop wisely.

In addition to the interior tweaks, the 2011 Compass comes fitted with new springs, new dampers with rebound springs (similar to the ones on the new Grand Cherokee) and anti-sway bars that are 10% stiffer than last year’s model. These few changes have made noticeable improvements in the Compass’ on and off road manners especially on curvy mountain roads and rough gravel where the old model would pitch and roll like a boat on the bay. Unfortunately the stock 215 width tires are a step behind the 235 rubbers worn by the Escape and Sportage and the difference in grip is readily apparent.

For 2011, the Compass can finally be had with the “Trail Rated Freedom-Drive II” AWD option (formerly only available on the Patriot). Like the regular AWD system, the FDII uses a wet clutch pack to connect and disconnect the rear differential as opposed to a true center differential. The clutch pack “slips” to allow the front and rear to turn at different rates, de-couples completely at highway speed to improve fuel economy and can offer a certain degree of “locking” when needed. The FDII system uses a modified CVT tweaked to deliver an imitation low range, the ability to force the clutch pack to lock for an approximate 50/50 maximum power split, and an extra inch of ground clearance. I say imitation because at 19:1 vs 14:1 (for the regular CVT) the effective “low range” is far from the low compared to the automatic transmission equipped Wrangler (32:1) and Liberty (25:1).

Low-range shortcomings aside, the Patriot and Compass are the only soft-road CUVs that even offer this feature… that has to count for something. On the other hand, I had the Compass during a freak hail/snow storm in May, and the lever seemed to make little difference on the road as the fully-automatic system connects or disconnects the rear at-will and the front and rear diffs don’t lock anyway. There is no annoying binding during parking lot maneuvers with the system in lock mode, which does make parking on ice a fairly drama-free event if you tires are up to the task. Side-to-side power splitting depends on the brakes to slow the spinning wheel, as the front and rear diffs are open units, and unless you are trying to do some serious off-roading, the automatic systems do their job just fine. Of course, if you were intending to do serious off-roading, you probably bought a Wrangler and you don’t need to worry about the little lever anyway. While Jeep labels the Compass as “Trail Rated,” they are a bit cagey about the specific metrics that must be met in order to attain the badge. If you’ve taken your Patriot or Compass on the Rubicon trail, let us know how it went in the comment section below.

The renovation budget being what it must have been, no improvements have been made in the engine department. Both the 2.0 and 2.4-liter engines can still be fairly described as gutless and unrefined. Power numbers remain unchanged at 158HP and 141 lb-ft for the 2-liter and 172HP and 165 lb-ft for the 2.4-liter engine. As the engines have only to motivate a little over 3,000 lbs, the math looks good on paper but is less satisfying in person due to the torque coming on quite late and quitting early. Since some shoppers may be interested in the manual transmission (available on the Sport trim FWD and AWD), they should be aware that the ratios of 3.37, 2.16, 1.41, 1.03 and .72 just don’t seem to jive well with this engine line up. The Nissan sourced CVT should allow the down-sized engine to reach (and stay at) its high and peaky power band quickly (like the Nissan Versa) but it doesn’t. Acceleration from a stop takes some time because the transmission starts varying the ratios early meaning the engine doesn’t arrive at its peak power RPM for some time.

Perhaps this is designed to make the event a little more pleasant on the ears as the 2.4L engine is not the smoothest 4-cylinder I have ever tested. For reasons best left in Michigan, engineers decided the Compass needed some fake gear ratios and an auto-stick. Don’t get me wrong, I loved the auto stick in my Eagle Vision TSi, but it is odd mated to a CVT. While you can select “gears” with the shifter, the ratios seem fairly arbitrary and useless. Nissan’s “L” range in their CVT vehicles provides far more consistent engine braking for hill descending than the forced “fixed” ratios the Compass employs. The Compass delivers MPG numbers of 21/27 in FWD trim, 21/26 in AWD trim (as tested) and 20/23 when equipped with the low-range CVT. These numbers essentially match the heavier Ford Escape and fall short of the South Korean competition. It should be noted that the Kia Sportage turbo delivers almost 100 more ponies for essentially the same mileage (at the cost of lower ground clearance). Over a 700-mile week we averaged a fairly acceptable 22MPG in mixed driving.

The Compass is a fairly compact SUV for American roads being slightly shorter than the Sportage and Escape and more than a full-foot shorter than the Equinox. Despite the proportions however, interior space easily matches the Equinox, CR-V and Sportage in most critical dimensions except for cargo capacity. Behind the rear hatch the 22.7 cu-ft capacity falls short of the 26.1 on offer in the Sportage, 31 cu-ft from the Escape and 35 from the CR-V. Some of this difference in cargo capacity is explained by the larger back seat in the Compass, which delivers more legroom for adult sized people. With the rear seats folded, the cargo room expands to a useable 67 cu-ft, more than enough for most small SUV shoppers and not far off the competition in the same folded position. If you routinely carry passengers in the rear, the smaller cargo area is an easy tradeoff for the four inches of additional legroom out back.

New clothes are not cheap and the Compass’ new look is no exception and perhaps it’s biggest sales challenge. The 2011 Compass gets a $4,000 price hike compared to the outgoing 2010 model, admittedly some of this increase is due to the increased levels of standard equipment vs the outgoing model but also means the Patriot is now some $3,300 cheaper. For a car that barely sells more than some luxury imports, raising the price seems a strange move to me. On the other hand, Chrysler’s turning a profit again, so who am I to judge?

With the Compass’ new looks and Patriot matching off-road ability, Jeep hopes the Compass will achieve at least the sales success the Patriot has. The only problem I foresee after a week with the baby Jeep is convincing shoppers to take that second look at the Jeep dealer. If the marketing mavens in Auburn Hills are unable to convince new shoppers to stop by, the Compass may just end up taking half of the Patriot’s small market share. If that were to happen it would be a pity since the Compass is finally worth a second look.

Jeep provided the vehicle, insurance and one tank of gas for this review.

0-30: 3.64 seconds
0-60: 9.3 seconds
1/4 Mile: 17 seconds @ 83 MPH

Not a fan of our Facebook page? Too bad. For our facebook peeps, here’s what you wanted to know: Jason: the towing capacity is 2,000lbs which is fairly small but no worse than the competition. Darren: Jeep finally figured that out themselves. Kristian: Day two wasn’t hard, it has seriously become a very middle-of-the-road vehicle. Nick: While I’m sure it would be easy, I didn’t encounter a task where getting it stuck would not have also gotten a “real” Jeep stuck. Next time I need to try an off-road park. CoolLikeMe: Yes to everything. Jim: the Sam Houston Tollway is about 1800 miles from where I am.

 

Brand extensions aren’t common in the auto industry, perhaps because they rarely (if ever) succeed. Chrysler and Oldsmobile hyperextended the LeBaron and Cutlass brands, respectively, into oblivion. But Toyota has struggled as much as anyone to sell hybrids that aren’t named Prius, so it will now attempt to sell additional models under that highly successful nameplate. First up: the Prius v (with the lowercase v for “versatile”). How far and how effectively does a second model extend the reach of the brand?

Brand extensions require finesse. If the additional model is too different than the original, then it becomes unclear what the brand stands for. But if it’s overly similar, people wonder what the point of it is, if they become aware of it at all. The naming system of the new models suggests that Toyota is more likely to err in the latter direction. The original Prius and the new Prius v will later be joined by the Prius PHV (for “Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle”) and the more compact Prius c. None of these names provides much basis for an independent identity. With a Taurus X in my driveway, I’m painfully aware of the confusion that ensues when people hear a familiar model name with a single character appended. Most alphanumerics give people two or three characters to latch onto.

Worse, many people already consider their Prius a Prius V, with the V (in this case a Roman numeral pronounced “five”) denoting the top trim level. To avoid the absurdity of a Prius v V, Prius trim levels are now spelled out. So the top trim will be the Prius v Five.

The exterior styling of the Prius v similarly errs on the side of anonymity. Every exterior panel is different, and the new model is larger in every dimension (three inches more wheelbase, six inches more overall length, three inches more height, and about an inch more width). Nevertheless, few people will mistake it for anything other than a Prius with a larger, squarer rear end. Which is essentially what it is.

It took three generations, but the Prius eventually evolved into a somewhat attractive car (at least when fitted with the Five’s 17-inch alloys). With the new Prius v, we’re back to the ungainly appearance of the first two Prii (the official plural, as decided by a public vote). Engineers likely dictated the basic shape of the car, and left its designers little latitude to pretty it up. The Prius v’s interior is similarly significantly less stylish than that of the current Prius, with none of its artful curves.

This styling (or lack thereof) suggests that the Prius v is first and foremost about function. The stylish “flying buttress” center console of the regular Prius is absent. Instead, there’s a much lower, much less intrusive center console with open compartments for iPhones, purses, and such. The hood over the centrally located instruments is narrow, so the view forward is more open. To the side, the base of the side windows is more horizontal, while to the rear a much boxier rear end enables a taller, single-piece rear window. With all of these changes the Prius v feels more open and roomier, but also less stylish and less sporty. This could very well be a response to second-generation Prius owners who dislike the more encapsulated, “starship pilot” driving position of the third-generation car. In both cars interior materials are the hard plastics typical of current Toyotas, but they appear cheaper inside the Prius v. The silver plastic trim on the doors appears dated.

Like that of the regular Prius, the Prius v’s front seat is comfortable and provides more lateral support than 99.9% of economy-minded drivers will ever need. But the rear seat disappoints. Though it includes an inch more headroom and two inches more shoulder room, there’s actually a little less legroom despite the new car’s longer wheelbase and overall length. Worse, the seat cushion is lower to the floor, less comfortably shaped, and further compromised by front seats that (unlike those in the regular Prius) don’t have enough room beneath them for the rear passenger’s feet. Add up these shortcomings, and the Prius v’s rear seat is considerably less comfortable for adults than that of the regular Prius. Toyota’s product development organization dropped the ball here.

One factor: the car’s packaging had to allow for the cramped third-row seat offered elsewhere in the world. This third row isn’t offered in the United States because it requires a more compact but also far more expensive lithium-ion battery pack (in place of the standard NiMH pack). Only one buyer in twenty has been willing to fork over about $900 for the similarly limited third row in the RAV4 compact SUV. So a $5,000+ third-row seat would clearly have few takers.

With the rear seat actually less comfortable, it falls to the Prius v’s larger cargo capacity to justify its existence. The regular Prius has 21.5 cubic feet behind the second row and 39.6 with this row folded. Thanks to its longer, boxier tail, the Prius v slightly exceeds the latter figure even without folding the second row if you slide this row forward a few inches (a feature the regular Prius does not have). The average adult will still fit in this mode, just with knees grazing the front seatbacks. Sliding the rear seat all the way back leaves 34.3 cubic feet behind it. With the seat folded, 67.3. These figures, a substantial improvement over the regular Prius, compare well to the compact SUVs Toyota names as the car’s primary target. A folding front passenger seat would make the Prius v even more versatile, but one is not offered.

The Prius v’s 134-horsepower (98 from the 1.8-liter gas engine) hybrid powertrain is unchanged from the regular Prius. A shorter final driver ratio (3.70 vs. 3.27) compensates for the larger car’s heftier curb weight (3,274 vs. 3,042 pounds), so acceleration is about the same. As in the regular Prius, the powertrain mode makes a big difference. Select “eco” and acceleration is couldn’t be more leisurely. Though accelerating very slowly feels surprisingly good in the Prius v because the powertrain in this mode is so smooth and so quiet, the drivers in your rearview mirror clearly find the experience much less relaxing. In the default mode, the powertrain feels substantially more responsive, and in “power” it feels almost quick. Work the powertrain hard, though, and it makes quite a bit more noise and has the unnatural, non-linear feel common with a CVT.

EPA ratings are much lower with the Prius v, 44/40 vs. 51/48. The differences compared to the regular Prius aren’t large—a little less slippery (the drag coefficient is 0.29 instead of 0.25), a little more frontal area, a little more weight, a shorter final drive ratio—but they apparently add up, at least within the EPA’s lab. Perhaps the Prius v wasn’t as thoroughly tweaked to gain a few tenths here and a few tenths there?

Suspension tweaks for the Prius v focused on ride quality, and the car does ride more smoothly and quietly than the regular Prius. Handling, not a Prius strongpoint to begin with, is a little less sharp but still more controlled than with the first- and second-generation Prii. Understeer and lean in hard turns are moderate. The tires rather than the suspension are very much the limiting factor. When they slide they do so progressively and without much audible fuss. Given its role as an efficient appliance, the Prius v handles well enough. Those seeking a more involving driving experience should check out the similarly functional, similarly efficient Volkswagen Jetta SportWagen TDI.

Since the Prius v shares its powertrain and many other parts beneath the skin with the regular Prius, reliability should be excellent. Prius owners participating in TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey have consistently reported very few repairs. Critics of the car have often stressed the danger of expensive battery pack failures, but these are hardly ever needed before 150,000 miles. A new battery pack runs about $2,500, but people have paid only a few hundred for packs out of wrecked cars with low miles.

Toyota hasn’t yet announced pricing for the Prius v, but suggests it will cost only be a little more than the regular Prius. The difference had better be $1,000 at most, for the Prius v doesn’t offer much more than the regular car. There’s significantly more cargo space, better outward visibility, and a less constricted driving position, but fuel economy takes a hit and the rear seat is surprisingly less comfortable. The Prius v doesn’t risk damaging the brand—it’s too similar to the regular Prius for this—but since the car is essentially a Prius wagon it’s hard to see why Toyota went through the trouble of developing an all-new exterior and interior. With a largely clean sheet and more inches to work with, why aren’t the exterior and interior more attractive, and why isn’t the rear seat much roomier? Unlike with the regular Prius, no one was swinging for the fences. The Prius v certainly isn’t a bad car, but it is nevertheless an opportunity squandered.

Toyota made this vehicle available for review at a regional launch event. A pre-production review can be found here.

Michael Karesh operates TrueDelta, an online source of automotive pricing and reliability data.

,