Jeep SRT-8

[Matt]

Only because GM don't have a f***ing clue what to do with the brand, and therefore isn't investing in designs, concepts, or new models...

That's not really fair. Saab was a failing company before GM took them over. The only reason the Saab nameplate is still around is because of GM.

[Coventrysucks]

and the added benefit of them handling well in snowy conditions.

SUVs can handle snow well, but they cannot handle well in snow.

They can't handle well when the roads are dry for the most part, because of their large size, and therefore momentum, which fights against handling, braking and acceleration.

if ou are in the market for an suv, chances are you are not too worried about gas milage.

So, if you were offered a choice of SUV; one with a petrol V8 that gets 12mpg, or one with a diesel V8 that gets 40% better milage figures, and therefore costs you 40% less in fuel bills...

It might not be a "worry", but why, literally, burn money?

With the srt8 you get a luxury suv, that performs like a sports car,

No, it doesn't.

It might be able to accelerate as fast, or slightly faster than a "sportscar" with less power, but again, the fact that it weighs nearly double that of a sports car it cannot possibly accelerate as responsively, corner as well, or brake as sharply as a sports car.

It isn't a sports car, everyone knows it isn't, so there is no use trying to pretend it is - it is a fast SUV.

We care about performance, getting looks, having something that not many people have, we are unique individuals, and we want a car that equally expresses who we are.

That's funny.

I don't want to tow things.

I care about performance, looks and a car that goes someway to expressing my tastes; that's why I wouldn't want an SUV as a "performance car" - I'd buy a TVR.

On a final note, I would just like to say that I think this srt8 model is the only responcible american suv built. all these other big trucks, and suv's do not have near enough braking power they need. The srt8 has enough, and then some. Hats off to these guys for creating a heavy suv that is capable of stopping the way a small car does.

I don't think that braking power satisfies "responsibility".

What about building them to the lightest weight possible so that in a crash, the huge mass and momentum of your SUV doesn't do more damage than it has to?

As a result you'd get improved performance and gas milage - where do you lose out?

You've already said that money isn't an issue, so a few $$$ more for aluminium rather than steel, and a proper monocoque chassis rather than a backbone won't hurt anyone.

How about offering the option of modern diesel engines that offer the choice for potential customers to use 15mpg rather than 40mpg for similar performance?

How about addressing the fact that in a pedestrian impact, the bonnet level of an SUV is usually at head height, purely for stylistic reasons?

the question was also asked why buy the cherokee when you can get a magnum, or a charger etc. the answer to that question is simple, ITS AN SUV!!! its an suv that performs like a sports car, you are setting high up and can see whats going on around you, it has all of the benefits of an suv, with the performance of a sports car.

It doesn't perform as well as a sports car!

Stick it on a track, or a road which isn't a short drag between traffic lights, and you will soon be lagging behind any decent sports car, and the driver of the sports car will probably be having much more fun doing it.

SUVs have a few advantages over cars, but for most of the people, most of the time, they will never make use of those benefits.

All an SUV does is show that a person has money to burn, and they don't care that their SUV is costing them much more to run than a similar car would.

For some that is fine, but I'd rather be saving that money so I could be spending it on other things; like a proper sports car

[Coventrysucks]

That's not really fair. Saab was a failing company before GM took them over. The only reason the Saab nameplate is still around is because of GM.

Why did GM buy Saab then?

Only to have it keep failing, by not investing because they don't really know what to do with it.

It is obvious that Saab could/should be the GM equivalent of Volvo - a european "prestige" brand, but they can't get into that market with only a 9 year old large saloon (9-5) and a small ok-but-not-brilliant saloon (9-3).

Bastardised Subarus aren't the answer; they need new models, but apart from the 9-3 there is nothing!

[Geneticfreak]

...

Ok, let me speak a little less literally. the gc srt8 handls better as an suv then most of the every day average cars, sports cars excluded. It handles better then just about any other suv on the market, there for I would say for what it is, it handles very well.

Yeah it gets bad gas milage, so do durangos, and non diesal rams. diesal engines produce alot of fumes, and polution. so I ask the question why polut the enviroment when you could just spend a few extra dollars and save mother earth.

I would love to own a sports car, but wouldnt be much point in it as it snows 4 months out of the year here, and I wouldnt be able to drive it in the snow. so I would be spending alot of money for somehting that I wouldnt be able to drive. so on top of spending more on a sports car then I did on my jeep, I would also have to buy another vehicle just to get around in the winter. so why not just spend less money and get a vehicle that I can drive year round, and is the sportiest of its class.

Say what ya want bro, its your oppinion and your entitled to it. 0-60 in less then 5 secconds while weighing 5klbs is nohting short of impressive. I might also go as far as to say that it most likely handles better and is faster then just about anyother 5 thousand pound vehicle.

I give you this challenge, take any sports car of any price range, fill it with enough lead to make it weigh as much as the srt8. then put them on a track, and see which one wins. I cant say for sure, but I would assume it would be the srt8, but even if it lost it would be very close.

I dont drive my car on the track. If I drove on a track, I would probly either build a race car, or buy a sports car. I drive on city streets, and often times they have more then 6 inches of snow on them. there for the srt8 is the perfect blend of sport utility vehicle, sports car, and luxury car. You dont have to buy one bro.

I think vipers, vettes, lambo, ferrari's are great cars, but I would never buy one. the insurance woudl be super expensive, It would get tore up in parking lots around here, I would crash it in the winter, and my back and knees would be killing me from climbing in and out of it. I dont think however because of that it makes these cars junk lol...freak

[Coventrysucks]

diesal engines produce alot of fumes, and polution. so I ask the question why polut the enviroment when you could just spend a few extra dollars and save mother earth.

Modern diesels do not produce "a lot" of fumes and pollution.

Diesel produces less C02 than petrol, and any particulates and soot should be trapped & burned off harmlessly.

On average a proper diesel should, globally, be cleaner than a petrol engine.

Also, consider that in 10,000 miles your Jeep (15mpg) will have burned 667 gallons of petrol, compared to 333 gallons that a similar diesel should be getting (c.30mpg).


As an aside, please don't quote long posts unless you are making specific reference to specific points, we can all scroll up the page and read the original post quite easily enough.
That is twice as much exhaust, so how can that possibly contain less pollution?

[thestanger]

After reading this thread I had to post my .02: I own a '98 Dodge Durango. I own one because it satisfies all of my needs and wants out of a vehicle. I am a physically fit tall guy - 6 foot 2 inches 240 pounds and work a regular job (i.e. not a millionaire). I have tried to find a vehicle that is inexpensive, looks good, gets good gas mileage and I don't have to get on the ground to get in. Either they get good mileage and I have to get a creeper to get in and drive with my knees or they get crappy mileage and I have plenty of room. As much as I love them, I can't afford to own a sports car, not to mention not very practical for a family. I don't need a truck since I don't farm although I do haul a bass boat and a couple of motorcycles from time to time. Lastly, I just plain hate the looks of a mini-van. I did NOT buy my Durango to burn as much gas and oil as possible to pollute the earth because I could, nor id I buy it as a status symbol. I bought it because it has the best options available on the market today for my wants and needs. It looks decent, has plenty of room for me, my wife, 2 kids, dog and all of our luggage, I can haul something if I want to and it doesn't look like a damn mini-van.

In summary, I like the Jeep and as someone stated before "keep'em coming"

[Coventrysucks]

I am a physically fit tall guy - 6 foot 2 inches 240 pounds

Why is there this constant argument that because you are "X ft X inches and XXX lbs" you "need" an SUV?

Do people really think that everyone outside of America is half the size, or are just happy to be cramped inside a vehicle that is too small for them?

I've never, ever heard anyone outside the USA say "Oh, I need to get an SUV 'cos I'm so big".

As a race, Scandanavian people are fairly large in stature compared to the rest of the globe, and it snows a lot of the time.

Surely if being big and it snowing 4 months of the year means you "need" an SUV, then logically; Scandanavia should be a prime market for full size SUVs and trucks.

Strangely enough, they get by just fine driving about in 'normal sized' two wheel drive cars.

Stop making up pathetic excuses; you bought an SUV because you like SUVs and you think they are cool.

There is nothing wrong with people liking SUVs; I like the current Land Rover range, I think they are cool, and I want one, and I feel slightly guilty about it because they go against what I believe is the correct "ethos" of car design; lightness.

I'm not trying to criticise people for buying one, I'm just trying to point out that the "for" arguments are, for the large part, complete bollocks.

[charged]

[QUOTE=jcp123]



So then, if you get a "sport" truck, you get this:
A truck that handles well, but not as well as a real sportscar.
A truck that accelerates well, but could do better as a real sportscar.
A vehicle that still has shitty gas mileage, even compared to many sportscars.
A truck whose payload capacitied are still usually well under what the REAL truck equivalents are, and whose towing capacities are also typically somewhat limited.

QUOTE]

Thankyou, I thought I was going nuts as I cant see the point of a fast suv, if you want something fast by a performance vehichle, if you want to go offroad by a Landcruiser etc. These fast SUV's are a complete wank IMHO.

One of these will kick the arse of any fast suv on a race track




One of these will kick the arse of any fast suv in the bush,see plenty of these in the bush, have'nt seen to many range rover sports etc pfft

[Cadillac Imaj]

That comes at a compromise though. Like most American cars, it will probably only appeal to American buyers.

Hmmmm.... Not really, to me, the car actually kinda appeals...

[The_Canuck]

again i would take the chevytrailblazer ss over this, why? well it can tow almost twice as much and still has a 0-60 of 5.5 plus revised suspension giving it great handling. these are C/D exact words:

during one manuver-kids don't try this at home- we flicked the truck left then abrubtly right, at about 90mph. The SS gracefully arced into a sideways slide that would do proffesional rally driver Colin Mcrae proud. we were grinning like idiots until we looked out the left side window and noticed this tippy sport ute was drastically leaning on its left side. Have you ever had a brief moment of clarity when time slows to a crawl and you can see and impending disaster? we did while we were going side ways at-90mph-in the chevy. But nothing happened. The SS handled the manuver alot like a Corvette: a bit of counter steering and it pulled out of the slide just fine. We tried it a few more times-- for experimental purposes of course-- and the ss behaved predictably and soundly.

oh and one more thing it's base price is 33.000 fully loaded it comes in at 39.000

[Cardude1111]

If I got a truck I would get a 1986 Sierra 1500 3/4.

[rev440]

Why is there this constant argument that because you are "X ft X inches and XXX lbs" you "need" an SUV?

I've never, ever heard anyone outside the USA say "Oh, I need to get an SUV 'cos I'm so big".

I'm not trying to criticise people for buying one, I'm just trying to point out that the "for" arguments are, for the large part, complete bollocks.

My buddy can actually use that for an excuse he cant fit in most cars because hes 6 foot 7 and a suv or truck is much more comfartable for him to drive. He also has a cadilac but thats one of the only cars on the market he can fit comfortable in.

[Coventrysucks]

My buddy can actually use that for an excuse he cant fit in most cars because hes 6 foot 7 and a suv or truck is much more comfartable for him to drive. He also has a cadilac but thats one of the only cars on the market he can fit comfortable in.

There you are then

He doesn't "need" to buy an SUV purely for reasons of stature if he can be comfortable in a car.

In my experience a Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover Discovery mk2 and previous generaton Range Rover have all been more cramped to be in than smaller cars.

I also suspect that many other SUVs don't offer significantly more room than equivalent cars; it is probably a psychological thing because you step up, rather than stepping down.

[rev440]

There you are then

He doesn't "need" to buy an SUV purely for reasons of stature if he can be comfortable in a car.

In my experience a Jeep Cherokee, Land Rover Discovery mk2 and previous generaton Range Rover have all been more cramped to be in than smaller cars.

I also suspect that many other SUVs don't offer significantly more room than equivalent cars; it is probably a psychological thing because you step up, rather than stepping down.

So a focus has more room then a expedition? I dont think so. Did you not read that I said thats one of the only cars on the market he can fit in?

[Geneticfreak]

Driving an suv deffinately does have advantages over driving small cars. It also has its disadvantages. deppending on where you place your importance you will either find an suv appealing, or not appealing. Being bigger obviously you are going to be more comfortable in a larger car, or a truck. The difference between stepping up and having to squat, is its hard on your knees and back. In an suv you naturally set up higher, and have a better vantage point to see around other vehicles, and obstacles.

As far as the whole scandanavian reply, I suppose it would deppend on how affordable suv's are there. suv's are relatively affordable here in the states. when compared to other cars they are in the basic price range. I do not know that is the case in other countries.

If you are driving an suv, and you slide off the road, you have a much better chance of being able to get back on to the road. if you are in a car, hope you have a cell phone to call a tow truck that will likely cost you a good 300-500u.s. dollars.

SUV's hold their resale value much better then most cars, because they are built with more durable parts. the engines last longer, and under normal driving conditions so do the transmissions. Also here in the states the engines in SUV's are generally more basic, and there is more room. there for if the engine has any problems, it is more likely that your average joe blow with a simple tool kit can work on the vehicle himself rather then taking it to a shop.

As americans we also like horse power, suv's give us that. Also having a family if you want an affordable vehicle with horsepower then you might aswell get an suv. There are not alot of family cars that come with a V8 option. So if you want a V8, then your options are a sports car, or an suv. if you have a family, or are on a limited budget then you are going to have to get the suv.

As far as towing capability I could care less what a car or truck can tow. the only thing I tow are my jet ski's, and my motorcycles. so I have no need to tow thousands of pounds. I could care less about having a super duper sports car capable of performing on the track. I dont drive on the track, I drive on the road every day

I want a vehicle that is relatively sporty, is somewhat capable off road/in the snow, that I can fit my family in, and pack full of luggage for a vacation, and maybe even have it be somewhat of a status symbol, or will catch some peoples eye.

Lastly I will make this comparison. I hear all you guys saying whats the point of an suv being fast, or not being able to do this or to do that. whats the point of having a sports car that has too much power to actually hook up on the street? whats the point of having a sports car that will go 0-60 in 3 secconds, when will you ever NEED to do that.

What it comes down to is what people WANT, can afford, and how realistic it would be to own/maintain/drive daily. Obviously americans love suv's, they account for a large portion of the market here in the states. So why not build a more sporty version of a vehicle that alot of people buy, and drive??

Sure its not going to beat a sports car on the track, it weighs 5000lbs, and has a high center of gravity. but by the same token a sports car is not going to out perform it on the trail. Sure there are suv's that will outperform the srt8 on the trail, but they wont on the streets. so I guesse you could say that it is the middle of the road, with a perfect ballance of off road capability, and track performance. I still dont think a sports car of equal weight, and similar horse power would do too much better then the srt8 on the track...freak