RE: Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT: Review
Discussion
Surely a prize for the first journo to max out the SRT on the Autobahn, 160mph in an SUV sounds quite exciting/alarming to me. After that, perhaps a hot lap around the 'Ring? Whoever gets that job will have fully earned their days wages... It's not my cup of tea but I'm glad cars like this still get built, and I'm even more glad that the notoriously litigious Americans are still involved in such tomfoolery. Good for them.
MikeSpencer said:
After that, perhaps a hot lap around the 'Ring?
Watch "The 2012 Grand Cherokee SRT8 runs the Nürburgring on Speed Test Drive. Part 4." on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRhvSbxlWNc&fe...adeelster said:
MikeSpencer said:
After that, perhaps a hot lap around the 'Ring?
Watch "The 2012 Grand Cherokee SRT8 runs the Nürburgring on Speed Test Drive. Part 4." on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRhvSbxlWNc&fe...
very much one of my dream cars - I just have to have one, one day!!!!
They have just facelifted the jeep and it looks amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpQC5TOMlo
There is one fundamental change they have made to the new car and that is the addition of a new 8 speed ZF gearbox and I have to say I love the 8 speeds. Reviews have been very positive of this change saying gear changes are almost instant now, very smooth and knows what gear it should be in all the time.
One day!!!!!
They have just facelifted the jeep and it looks amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpQC5TOMlo
There is one fundamental change they have made to the new car and that is the addition of a new 8 speed ZF gearbox and I have to say I love the 8 speeds. Reviews have been very positive of this change saying gear changes are almost instant now, very smooth and knows what gear it should be in all the time.
One day!!!!!
Edited by IATM on Tuesday 18th June 21:36
Edited by IATM on Tuesday 18th June 21:37
hapless said:
I'm not listening.
Jeep do a factory Wrangler conversion, although it cost $81000
IMG-20121215-00036 by micawrx, on Flickr
IMG-20121215-00035 by micawrx, on Flickr
IMG-20121215-00037 by micawrx, on Flickr
AEV in the UAE are constantly doing aftermarket installs.
My 2006 SRT8 is showing a long term average of about 15mpg being driven mostly fairly gently (with family & dog on board) on mostly short journeys. But I did see 19.1 briefly on a long cruise.
It'll do less than 3,000 miles a year so fuel costs aren't too frightening.
No, the ground clearance and towing ability won't be good enough for some people's needs but, since my previous car couldn't even clear most speed humps, it's fine for me.
It'll do less than 3,000 miles a year so fuel costs aren't too frightening.
No, the ground clearance and towing ability won't be good enough for some people's needs but, since my previous car couldn't even clear most speed humps, it's fine for me.
dome said:
spitsfire said:
This car will be bought by men who buy earrings. And 22" split rim chromed wheels.
Draw your own conclusions.......
I have neither and I'd buy one. The conclusion I'd draw is you like to try and make up stereotypes.Draw your own conclusions.......
I wouldn't care if it didn't affect me, but if I get hit by one of those things on a bike, on foot, or in a small car, I'm more likely to die. Why should I have to take that risk, not because the driver needs the vehicle, but cause he wants to look like Pimp Diddy?
I have complete contempt for them, and I'm ready to get flamed for it.
Edited by spitsfire on Thursday 20th June 10:10
spitsfire said:
dome said:
spitsfire said:
This car will be bought by men who buy earrings. And 22" split rim chromed wheels.
Draw your own conclusions.......
I have neither and I'd buy one. The conclusion I'd draw is you like to try and make up stereotypes.Draw your own conclusions.......
I have complete contempt for them.
What car do you drive so we can make up a stereotype about you? (assuming I have time in between my redneck line-dancing duties).
Most pedestrians and cyclists are at risk of death if hit by any car, it's a simple question of an expanse of metal and plastic hitting something at a given speed - weight and size is probably less relevant?
spitsfire said:
dome said:
spitsfire said:
This car will be bought by men who buy earrings. And 22" split rim chromed wheels.
Draw your own conclusions.......
I have neither and I'd buy one. The conclusion I'd draw is you like to try and make up stereotypes.Draw your own conclusions.......
I have complete contempt for them.
The issue with SUVs is that the front is considerably higher, so more likely to hit a pedestrian/cyclist in the chest or head. Which is generally bad. On a motorbike, if you have a collision with an SUV, you're more likely to go into a vertical expanse of metal than glance off.
You also can't see anything on the road ahead when you're following a private vehicle the size of Belgium, and they are literally the same width as a lane on the road, so are more demanding to pilot. Pity the drivers don't have the corresponding increase in training and skills to cope with this. In fact, they get more metal around them, giving the impression that they are safer, and consequently at less risk when they cock up. Unlike anything in their way.
I appreciate that some people do need big 4x4s - I used to have a Patrol - but I think it's very selfish to select a car which is a greater risk to fellow road users (for no discernable benefit) simply to look like a Baltimore drug dealer.
You also can't see anything on the road ahead when you're following a private vehicle the size of Belgium, and they are literally the same width as a lane on the road, so are more demanding to pilot. Pity the drivers don't have the corresponding increase in training and skills to cope with this. In fact, they get more metal around them, giving the impression that they are safer, and consequently at less risk when they cock up. Unlike anything in their way.
I appreciate that some people do need big 4x4s - I used to have a Patrol - but I think it's very selfish to select a car which is a greater risk to fellow road users (for no discernable benefit) simply to look like a Baltimore drug dealer.
spitsfire said:
The issue with SUVs is that the front is considerably higher, so more likely to hit a pedestrian/cyclist in the chest or head. Which is generally bad. On a motorbike, if you have a collision with an SUV, you're more likely to go into a vertical expanse of metal than glance off.
You also can't see anything on the road ahead when you're following a private vehicle the size of Belgium, and they are literally the same width as a lane on the road, so are more demanding to pilot. Pity the drivers don't have the corresponding increase in training and skills to cope with this. In fact, they get more metal around them, giving the impression that they are safer, and consequently at less risk when they cock up. Unlike anything in their way.
I appreciate that some people do need big 4x4s - I used to have a Patrol - but I think it's very selfish to select a car which is a greater risk to fellow road users (for no discernable benefit) simply to look like a Baltimore drug dealer.
So it's not 'selfish' to dictate what type of vehicle everyone must drive because you don't like it?You also can't see anything on the road ahead when you're following a private vehicle the size of Belgium, and they are literally the same width as a lane on the road, so are more demanding to pilot. Pity the drivers don't have the corresponding increase in training and skills to cope with this. In fact, they get more metal around them, giving the impression that they are safer, and consequently at less risk when they cock up. Unlike anything in their way.
I appreciate that some people do need big 4x4s - I used to have a Patrol - but I think it's very selfish to select a car which is a greater risk to fellow road users (for no discernable benefit) simply to look like a Baltimore drug dealer.
Edited by MonkeySpanker on Thursday 20th June 10:26
No Monkey - it's not a question of 'not liking them', it's a question of not liking the increased probability of ending up in a body bag if one of them hits me.
This doesn't in itself doesn't bother me - I accept that buses, trucks, and vans all create the same risk, but at least the increased risk they pose can be mitigated by the fact that the form follows the function. Unless there is a function which an oversized faux off-roader performs which necessitates it's existence, I simply don't see the point.
A large number of them are also driven by complete cocks, although I'm sure that wouldn't apply to anybody on PH
This doesn't in itself doesn't bother me - I accept that buses, trucks, and vans all create the same risk, but at least the increased risk they pose can be mitigated by the fact that the form follows the function. Unless there is a function which an oversized faux off-roader performs which necessitates it's existence, I simply don't see the point.
A large number of them are also driven by complete cocks, although I'm sure that wouldn't apply to anybody on PH
LuS1fer said:
Your whole argument is based on a collison occurring. The same can be said about motorbikes hitting pedestrians or cyclists. If a car hits either, the ped/cyclist will be thrown onto the screen or roof - phew, thank goodness for that.
True, but the stats are far worse if you are hit by an SUV than a car......Not that being hit by either is much fun, but given the choice, I know which one I'd rather get hit by!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff