Thoughts on the SRT8 cherokee?

>>13841042
>Not a Twingo
>Not A GT-R
>Not the Godmachine GT86
>Not a Ford

It must be really shit.
/thread

File: image.jpg (189KB, 1024x699px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1024x699px

>>13841042
Awesome.

Grand Cherokees are really nice. I can't imagine having the SRT model.

>Dodge
>Ever
no

I used to mold the weather stripping for the rear windows on these. If the rest of the thing is the same build quality as those, it'll fall apart at 20K

>>13841042
Cool as fuck. I intend to buy one and bull bar it with some bullet resistant panels and tires when I level up a little.

>>13841042
Wish I could afford one

File: 1444793063300.jpg (119KB, 668x350px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 668x350px

>any post 1973 chrysler product that isn't a viper or a truck (and even then..)

Obligatory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaYFLb8WMGM

>>13841042
GRAND Cherokee

>>13842171
>A fully loaded 4WD with underinflated tyres doesn't handle well
MORE NEWS AT 9

>>13841042
The turbo diesel is still lightning quick off the line and doesn't drink more fuel than most trucks.

>>13842243
In the full video they test a VW Touareg and Volvo XC60. Both of them handled it perfectly. I can't find the original video, but both of them basically acted like this in the elk test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSNMFiLQMbs

>>13842274
And both of them are FWD family cars with proper tyre pressures.

>>13841042
Follow a guy that bought one front end "totaled", put a cheap blower on it... Single digit boost. Still slow AFW. Cause it's a huge 6000 lbs SUV.

>>13843152
5-10 PSI should still add about 150-200crank hp to a 420 hp engine, which means 550-600 at the crank, maybe 500 left at the tires on a good day (given the AWD system's big drivetrain loss). That shouldn't be a slocuh, even for that huge weight.

Also, watch what you can do with a set of twins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYsQ5NXOIs
These babies were just made for boost.

File: pepe fingers.jpg (7KB, 180x180px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 180x180px

>>13841042
I know a super rich kid who got one for getting a 36 on the ACT. Shit's comfy and feels quick, with a good exhaust note. 10/10 obnoxious douche-barge, but in a good way.

His other option was a Porsche Macan, but he got the Jeep because his brother had a normal Grand Cherokee and he wanted to rub it in his face.

File: dwight-schrute-false-288x300.jpg (21KB, 288x300px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 288x300px

>>13843184
Nigga I'm talking about the 6.4 SRT that has 475HP naturally aspirated. It does Hellcat numbers through all 4 wheels at 5PSI. It's still seconds slower than a Hellcat cause lul 3 tons.

>>13843267
>Nigga I'm talking about the 6.4 SRT
My bad, I was thinking about the 6.1. Also, 470, not 475.
>It does Hellcat numbers through all 4 wheels at 5PSI.
The hell it does. Vortech centrifugals, which are currently one of the most efficient sueprchargers, add about 150 crank hp to a 6.4 at 6 PSI. 625 crank hp is still 75 short of a Hellcat, and keep in mind the Jeep's AWD system eats up a lot of those ponies.
Hellcat is 2 tons. AWD and massive grip makes up for that, but not completely of course. You'd probably need an 800-900hp Cherokee to outrun a Hellcat.

never buy anything that has to do with chrysler corporation. I have even had Jeep salesmen tell me that their product is shit and I should buy something else.

suburban douchemobile, with the added fact that people who willingly buy late-model Jeeps are fucking terrible people and drivers

>>13842171
You do know that test was faked right? They tried to redo it and were unable. Jeep/Chrysler/Dodge make terrible cars but don't link to flawed bullshit videos.

Blows my mind that there are people who actually buy cars made by chrysler/fiat/dodge/jeep.

Like out of ALL the cars available, you settle for this garbage? They offer nothing that the competition cant match, absolutely nothing.

They are unreliable, ugly, have bad performance compared to other cars in its class, aren't even good at off roading, bad mpg, are owned by fiat, etc.

Worst car brand money can buy.

>>13845273
BUT ISNT THE FIAT 500 JUST SOOOOO CUTE :D

>>13845273
>>13845240
> hurr durr le FCA = shit meeme

>>13843152
It's nowhere near 6000lbs.

my 5 year old wrangler has rust everywhere. And I don't mean on the undercarriage or on parts that get hit with road salt/water.

Painted bolts under the hood, on the windshield latch covers and tailgate have orange residue all over them. Pull them out and you'll see rust all over the bolts and around the holes. Chrysler factory painting sucks dick.

Oh and the 60k mile engine drinks more than a quart of oil every 1 thousand miles. Lots of people dealing with this shit but Chrysler says it's normal.

The 6 speed had to be replaced when it was new because it popped out of gear. Everything squeaks and rattles

>>13845538

>he thinks Chrysler \was and ever will be capable of making a good car

>>13845273
they're mostly domestitards or just poor (fiat)

>>13841042
I prefer the first gen. The new models ya they have more power, but also more weight so in a straight line they are about the same. But the older one can handle more abuse and its easier to mod as the computer isn't locked down. With just a procharger pushing 5-6psi you can make ~550awhp and hit mid to lows 11 in the 1/4. But the transmissions are weak, and the engines. They max at like 600awhp.

It's a pavement princess. It's an SUV, which by definition means an off-road vehicle, tuned for being a pavement princess.

>>13845950
>SUV, which by definition means an off-road vehicle
lel, tell that to literally every car brand that is still producing cars.
pro tip: most of the "SUVs" you see on the road will never see something else than pavement.

Jeep is the American Lada

>Jeep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK0SrxBC1xs

ayy

>>13845969
>most of the "SUVs" you see on the road will never see something else than pavement.
I know, and that's what pissed me off. These people buy what is essentially a small enclosed truck because they think it's the "fashionable" thing to do or that lift+size=safe, which it does not. What these people should be driving is a minivan.

>>13846059
Sp your statement doesn't only refer to the Jeep but rather to every suv

>>13846059
Or a wagon or a hatchback like they do in Europe, where it's working out perfectly fine.

>>13841042
>>13841058
Ugly af
Lol cant turn
Entire pig, not just the fat.
8cyl required to move the landbarge
Brembos requiree to stop the landbarge
Le angry face xDDDD
SUV
Manufacturer known to create exploding vehicles.

0/10 would not buy

>>13846067
Exactly.
>>13846070
I honestly think a wagon or even a sedan would suit people's needs better than a minivan. I guess people find the excess of space in a van to be good when trying to strap in roudy kids, but it's not necessary at all.

They're ugly as shit, and that's coming from someone driving a WJ. Everytime I pull up next to one at a light or see one I shake my head.

It's big and bulky looking and doesn't even remotely have that offroad look or feel that previous generations of Grand Cherokees had.

I had a Limited one as a rental for two weeks while my car was at the shop. Mind you it was the v6.

I thought it was absolutely fantastic. Even with the 6 it had enough pep to get on the highways easy. The tech in dodge/chrysler is second to none in my book. The adjustable lumbar seats felt cheap and gimmicky, that's my only gripe.

I took it on some twisties for a mini vacation, it handled pretty well, not quite a sports car - as some corners felt cumbersome and unintelligent, but otherwise it was fine handling for an SUV.

I firmly believe that that car, with a v8, is absolutely perfect, I would have one in a heart beat.