I don't like the looks of this one, especially compared to the older one. They say this one is more practical, we'll call it a Jeep Cherokee r/t or something else. SRT's are not suppose to be practical.
My gosh. Okay, it's $55k. Who cares? Do you realize the value here? Load it up for $60! My brother has his 2012 GC WK2 SRT8 on order. This will be his 2nd Jeep SRT8. I have a 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged now. Mine was in the $80k range. You see the difference? The Jeep is still a great value even with the inflated price from the WK. I love the look and feel of the Rover, but I know the Jeep will still trounce mine. Enjoy these machines. They are for a special group of people.
6.4 liter engine and only 470 hp, I wonder what the WHP will be... probebly around 430-440 on 91 pump octane , the americans have to get rid of these stone age engines and move on to twin turbo set up or supercharger like the rest of the world
@arashn89 I sense a bit of jealousy in this statement. There is NOTHING wrong with a big naturally aspirated V8. You hardly see these SRT8s on the road as they only cater to a small niche market. Eventually these motors will be banned, but for now, why the hell not drop them into cars while we still can? Mercedez still uses big v8s and v12 so... please, STFU.
@arashn89 What are you talking about? Aston Martin uses huge V-12s as does Mercedes. The BMW M3 uses a gigantic V-8. Lamborghini uses a gigantic V-12. What is this about the rest of the world using turbos and superchargers?
@lawsonmahoney The M3 uses a pretty small 4.0 Liter V8 engine. It makes 103hp Per liter of NA Power. I don't know where you're getting the info from...
@arashn89 Variable cam phasing (VVT) with MDS cylinder deactivation as well as an aluminum block and forged crank and oil squirters under the pistons and an active intake manifold and exhaust scavenging system is stone age technology? Hmmmm darn those guys over at Chrysler for making 73.5hp/liter on a N/A platform. Not to mention it makes 90% of its 470ft lbs or torque at 2k rpm, haaa terrible design! I mean its really boring driving around town with 470hp on tap any moment your heart desires
@ImHereToAnnoyYou Really? Since you're so well informed then, why dont you find me another N/A motor that makes something significantly greater with the same constraints? IE Sub $60k vehicle. You may find one or two close ot it but nothing more. Youd have to have Lamborghins budget/unit or being working with an F/I platform to do so, so no even in 2011 those numbers are impressive. The real impressive point though was the torque curve or lack there of. Its more like a peak line from 2k rpm on
@antonio105x Honda Civic Type R 100+ HP per litre - well under $60k, in fact I don't think you can buy a Honda with less than 73.5 hp per litre. Pick any European or Japanese manufacturer, as I said, 73.5 is nothing to shout about.
A basic US spec Ford Focus makes about the same power per litre and no one would say that's a performance car.
.. Why are you comparing a HONDA to a Jeep performance SUV? o_O
They're made for different consumers, and thus, are different vehicles completely. I'm sorry, but people who are shopping for an SRT, are not going to cross-shop over at Honda..
@suzq044chopartist yeah but it was just to illustrate the point that the 'Jeep performance SUV's power output per litre is not a particularly amazing feat relatively speaking.
A V6 Porsche Cayenne makes 80+ hp per litre and is $6,000 cheaper.
@ImHereToAnnoyYou A porsche cayenne is a lot more money sorry to burst your bubble! A Cayenne turbo that makes 500hp is just about 120k, the base 300hp cayenne is 78k
@yvonnicole Nope..... at current prices the base Cayenne V6 is $48,200 and the Jeep SRT8 starts at $60,960. So you're totally wrong and I'm not even inside a bubble, sorry to show you up!
@yvonnicole Yeah I wish, I was talking about power output per litre and the spurious 'leap forward' implied. My points still stand despite baseless attacks, bias and much leaping upon the proverbial band wagon.
@ImHereToAnnoyYou ill just tell you so you dont think you are some genius if/when you reply. A few Honda motors are the only ones in the same range or far less for that matter that can make this power and more. Many of their k/b series motors have made over 100/hp litre N/A because Honda builds great motors. Dont like them but they do that well. BMW has also been close but their avg MSRP is well over $60k so they dont count. The 392 Hemi is a great motor and will make 500hp+ easily w/ little $
@antonio105x You can't pretend Honda doesn't exist to support your argument, it's a flawed arguement. Mazda MX-5's, Mini Cooper's, non-turbo Impreza's etc there's plenty of others, not to mention other car brands you don't get in America.
I guess for a US car 73.5 might be surprising but it's pretty average everywhere else in the world, sure some have less but many have more and lots more, hence it's not worth bragging about.
@ImHereToAnnoyYou Personally id consider all of those motors great works of art and very solid pieces of engineering. It takes a lot to get what they do out a motor and although it may be more common today than it was, I personally still consider it impressive. Maybe if something is common it becomes unimpressive? But understanding what it truly takes to do what they're doing, it still impresses me. I guess progress is expected but I still find it nice to see N/A motors making nice useable power
@barsy07 This jeep is all about making a statement just like buying a porsche! plus if you are the kind of guy buying this, you probably don't worry about the gas mileage and the price. other wise buy a honda.
Hey, it's got a German frame and Italian brakes. I guess we (Americans) have finally just given up on engineering our own good cars. And maybe that is for the best.
@sullyFL You seriously shouldnt give up these industries. Or you will end up like England one day.. no industry, just Banks and Investment Groups.. and i guess much of them wont survive the next 10 years.
@buttnut1080 "Oh, and any off road capability they once had is gone." - In a Jeep? Really? I offroad all the time in mine....Also "SUV" stands for Sport Utility Vehicle. You may think they're "pointless", but Jeep's sales figures beg the point that many do not share your opinion.
@RonnocNaveNagol Yeah that's right, any off road capability they had is gone. Just because it's a Jeep doesn't mean it can still go off road after being given lower, stiffer suspension and street tires.
@hultii yeah it is! If youve seen some of the test numbers theyve run on it. 70mph through the slalom, 0-60 4.8 - 100-0 in 115ft, skidpad @ .92G's - these numbers are all identical or better than the first gen so performance wise it has remained the same but many other things have improved. The numbers dont lie, it fits in at any track no problem and can go off-road. No its not a 911 or a GTR but itll beat any other stock SUV on planet around the track and drive there :) Sounds like a win to me
@buttnut1080 You're forgetting one thing vs those others, this is fast. Look up Grand Cherokee SRT8 vs Audi R8 lol for the old version with 50 less horsepower, worse gas mileage, less interior room, and no towing ability. This new one will be a hit
@buttnut1080 How are fast SUV's pointless and a waste of money? What about the guy who needs a vehicle to seat 5 comfortably and have a lot of trunk space while still having the desire to go fast? Hmmm... wait I know: a fast SUV.
@kfr19 Or a large sedan with an extended rear end to house things...I think they call it a wagon or something. Iono, it's a weird concept, but I hear it offers nearly all the driving dynamics of a regular with most of the versatility of a midsized SUV without, of course, the raised center of gravity.
I admit that fast SUVs do make good sleepers, though. That, they're good for.
@MagicSeal Some people don't prefer the look of a wagon though, in which case, an SUV such as this is still appropriate for this segment of the population.
@kfr19 fast SUV's are fine but i dont see the point in loading a suv w/ an extremely firm suspension to make it handle. a big motor make sense though if there adequate brakes
@AlternativeUses I would say that driving fast in a straight line is only half the fun. So then why not give it a firm suspension to make it fun in the twistys, too. This way it'd truly be a fast SUV.
@kfr19 yeah, the absurdity of a performance SUV aside, i agree with you. it would be pretty cool to be able to use the srt8 as a daily driver from the driving enjoyment standpoint
@kfr19 I cannot believe people actually disagree with me on this. Look no matter what I say it's not gonna change your mind so you'll have to use your head a little and figure out why they're so pointless.
@buttnut1080 So basically you don't have a response to my comment and you decide to insult me instead. Very mature. The reason why I commented is to understand your thought process and what your opinion is. But apparently you're not worth my time.
@kfr19 I just can't believe you think they're a good idea. I mean you're talking about one of the most uneconomical and expensive American cars you can buy, all for speed which there really isn't a lot of compared to the sport sedans of today, those of which edge out this Jeep in handling and braking even more so.
@buttnut1080 I agree this is an excessive vehicle, but any $50-60k vehicle will be excessive in one way or another... in this case, it's a ridiculously large and powerful engine. I still believe this SRT-8 isn't an awful idea for the person who needs a larger vehicle (more space than a sports sedan can offer) but doesn't want a wagon and still wants to go fast. Sure, braking and handling is a step behind a typical sports sedan, but its 4.8-second 0-60 time is just as good, if not better.
@kfr19 Of course there's at least some people who'll want any kind of car. I don't know. I've always thought that a really fast SUV was so uneconomical and, on a more opinionated note, uncool compared to say a Charger R/T, Mitsubishi Evo X or Audi S4.
@buttnut1080 To be fair, the Evo X isn't exactly economical: 16/22 mpg - better than the SRT8, but that's not saying much. As far as uncool vs. cool, that's very subjective because I don't think the Charger R/T is very cool. I'd easily take the SRT8 and its big V8 over the Charger R/T's V6. Plus, the SRT8 is faster than the Charger R/T and equally as fast as the Evo X and S4, and to me that is very cool. But like you said earlier, we aren't going to change each other's mind, which is fine.
@kfr19 I don't think the Charger is very cool either (ps, the R/T has a V8). But that's a car that deserves such a big engine, not some family SUV. I don't know. I would just never buy such a ridiculous car. The 3.7 or 5.7 Cherokee is really nice however, and that retains real off road capability and a comfortable ride.
@buttnut1080 I wouldn't say that. It can do many things a sports car can't, but as I'm sure you're thinking, in this day and age it's hard to justify such vehicles though with the cost of gas. ): I do prefer the more economical ones with turbo diesels and off road prowess though. Just wish they'd sell the turbo diesel Wrangler here. They even make a turbo diesel Grand Cherokee for Europe
@tommy35ss I don't mean to sound like a green party rep but there's a line I draw and an SRT Jeep crosses that line. Then there's other things like the fact that it's the most expensive SRT currently made and that with it's beefed up suspension and lowered ride height, it's lost some of its off road prowess. In my opinion, this engine belongs in the Challenger and that's the car I'd happily take.
So it can tow now?
BulletBlazerSS 1 day ago
This is ideal for stay at home husbands!
Disappointment!
SukmadikHo 2 months ago
I don't like the looks of this one, especially compared to the older one. They say this one is more practical, we'll call it a Jeep Cherokee r/t or something else. SRT's are not suppose to be practical.
frostypowermike 4 months ago
i work for a dodge dealership their sticker isnt near 54 thousand their stickered at 64k
spoolnturbos 4 months ago
@BigKiddStats TIP: SAVE YOUR MONEY! Porsche is way better and 6g cheaper
Travide 5 months ago
@Travide i dont care about gas cause my company pays for it and i never tow
BigKiddStats 5 months ago
Comment removed
Travide 5 months ago
MY GOOD GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RAAMbitty 6 months ago
old one > new one
Corveette 6 months ago
Far better than the Range Rover Sport and Cayenne, and for far less at the showroom, and the service shop. Can't wait to get one!
root9king 7 months ago
12 City/18 HWY ARGH.....................
RLHoldenSr 7 months ago
so dope but this one wont look as good blacked out as a 2008 it reminds me more of a porche
jgcane 7 months ago
I think a long term test is needed. Please send it to me, and I'll drive it for 4 years and let you know how good it is.
notenuftoys 7 months ago 10
Too bad you can't tow 5000lbs with your Honda :) or have all wheel drive.
steve01wj 7 months ago
WANT!
root9king 7 months ago
Do they make a lift for it yet?
MrDecran2 7 months ago
I think I prefer the older model
SeraphimValkyrin 7 months ago
hate the grille looks too much like the compass
hobojo898 7 months ago
@hobojo898 they modeled the compass off of the cherokee...
swalte6325 7 months ago
Kind of defeats the purpose of a Jeep.
alexcheetah79 7 months ago
dose not deserv the pric tooo high
aladeen12 7 months ago
Hmm. I like it but I'd rather buy a hennessy hpe 1000 escalade, cuz chrysler has bad suv and truck transmissions.
ChevySSMonster 7 months ago
My gosh. Okay, it's $55k. Who cares? Do you realize the value here? Load it up for $60! My brother has his 2012 GC WK2 SRT8 on order. This will be his 2nd Jeep SRT8. I have a 2010 Range Rover Sport Supercharged now. Mine was in the $80k range. You see the difference? The Jeep is still a great value even with the inflated price from the WK. I love the look and feel of the Rover, but I know the Jeep will still trounce mine. Enjoy these machines. They are for a special group of people.
fishelfinder 7 months ago
6.4 liter engine and only 470 hp, I wonder what the WHP will be... probebly around 430-440 on 91 pump octane , the americans have to get rid of these stone age engines and move on to twin turbo set up or supercharger like the rest of the world
arashn89 7 months ago
@arashn89 I sense a bit of jealousy in this statement. There is NOTHING wrong with a big naturally aspirated V8. You hardly see these SRT8s on the road as they only cater to a small niche market. Eventually these motors will be banned, but for now, why the hell not drop them into cars while we still can? Mercedez still uses big v8s and v12 so... please, STFU.
sdlausen 7 months ago
@arashn89 What are you talking about? Aston Martin uses huge V-12s as does Mercedes. The BMW M3 uses a gigantic V-8. Lamborghini uses a gigantic V-12. What is this about the rest of the world using turbos and superchargers?
lawsonmahoney 7 months ago
@lawsonmahoney The M3 uses a pretty small 4.0 Liter V8 engine. It makes 103hp Per liter of NA Power. I don't know where you're getting the info from...
BoiledDogs 7 months ago
@arashn89 Variable cam phasing (VVT) with MDS cylinder deactivation as well as an aluminum block and forged crank and oil squirters under the pistons and an active intake manifold and exhaust scavenging system is stone age technology? Hmmmm darn those guys over at Chrysler for making 73.5hp/liter on a N/A platform. Not to mention it makes 90% of its 470ft lbs or torque at 2k rpm, haaa terrible design! I mean its really boring driving around town with 470hp on tap any moment your heart desires
antonio105x 7 months ago
@antonio105x 73.5 HP per litre on a naturally aspirated engine isn't very impressive these days, maybe in the 1990's.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou Really? Since you're so well informed then, why dont you find me another N/A motor that makes something significantly greater with the same constraints? IE Sub $60k vehicle. You may find one or two close ot it but nothing more. Youd have to have Lamborghins budget/unit or being working with an F/I platform to do so, so no even in 2011 those numbers are impressive. The real impressive point though was the torque curve or lack there of. Its more like a peak line from 2k rpm on
antonio105x 7 months ago
@antonio105x Honda Civic Type R 100+ HP per litre - well under $60k, in fact I don't think you can buy a Honda with less than 73.5 hp per litre. Pick any European or Japanese manufacturer, as I said, 73.5 is nothing to shout about.
A basic US spec Ford Focus makes about the same power per litre and no one would say that's a performance car.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou
.. Why are you comparing a HONDA to a Jeep performance SUV? o_O
They're made for different consumers, and thus, are different vehicles completely. I'm sorry, but people who are shopping for an SRT, are not going to cross-shop over at Honda..
suzq044chopartist 7 months ago 18
@suzq044chopartist yeah but it was just to illustrate the point that the 'Jeep performance SUV's power output per litre is not a particularly amazing feat relatively speaking.
A V6 Porsche Cayenne makes 80+ hp per litre and is $6,000 cheaper.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou A porsche cayenne is a lot more money sorry to burst your bubble! A Cayenne turbo that makes 500hp is just about 120k, the base 300hp cayenne is 78k
yvonnicole 1 month ago
@yvonnicole Nope..... at current prices the base Cayenne V6 is $48,200 and the Jeep SRT8 starts at $60,960. So you're totally wrong and I'm not even inside a bubble, sorry to show you up!
ImHereToAnnoyYou 1 month ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou !!!TROLL ALERT!!! ACTIVATED
pimpninja1985 1 week ago
@pimpninja1985 Facts are tough for you to deal with I suppose.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImHereToAnnoyYou !!!TROLL ALERT!!! ACTIVATED
pimpninja1985 1 week ago
@suzq044chopartist Dude his name says it all haha
SRT8JeepGC 4 months ago
@suzq044chopartist maybe hes trying to make honda putting an nsx engine (new one) into the CRV
BOREDfromX2z 1 month ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou It's more about torque at all rpms than horsepower
normalais 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou what are you 16 yrs old? don't compare this to a civic.
yvonnicole 1 month ago
@yvonnicole Yeah I wish, I was talking about power output per litre and the spurious 'leap forward' implied. My points still stand despite baseless attacks, bias and much leaping upon the proverbial band wagon.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 1 month ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou ill just tell you so you dont think you are some genius if/when you reply. A few Honda motors are the only ones in the same range or far less for that matter that can make this power and more. Many of their k/b series motors have made over 100/hp litre N/A because Honda builds great motors. Dont like them but they do that well. BMW has also been close but their avg MSRP is well over $60k so they dont count. The 392 Hemi is a great motor and will make 500hp+ easily w/ little $
antonio105x 7 months ago
@antonio105x You can't pretend Honda doesn't exist to support your argument, it's a flawed arguement. Mazda MX-5's, Mini Cooper's, non-turbo Impreza's etc there's plenty of others, not to mention other car brands you don't get in America.
I guess for a US car 73.5 might be surprising but it's pretty average everywhere else in the world, sure some have less but many have more and lots more, hence it's not worth bragging about.
ImHereToAnnoyYou 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou Personally id consider all of those motors great works of art and very solid pieces of engineering. It takes a lot to get what they do out a motor and although it may be more common today than it was, I personally still consider it impressive. Maybe if something is common it becomes unimpressive? But understanding what it truly takes to do what they're doing, it still impresses me. I guess progress is expected but I still find it nice to see N/A motors making nice useable power
antonio105x 7 months ago
@ImHereToAnnoyYou and bragging how efficient a small engine is when it
ONLY HAS 2XXhp is asinine. 500hp big engine car vs 200hp smaller much more efficient engine car guess what the outcome is every time!
ShartCannon 7 months ago
@ShartCannon Now just imagine 500hp as a base and add the turbo wicked i can tell you this much. srt8 392 with turbo blasting quarter mile under 10.
yvonnicole 1 month ago
@arashn89 470hp from a Push-rod V8 is a lot. Plus there are companies that chip the ECU to over 500hp with this engine.
BoiledDogs 7 months ago
@BoiledDogs exactly. Plus hp on the engine is underrated
Blizzck211 6 months ago
@arashn89 they last longer!
yvonnicole 1 month ago
Ylkes, too expensive
amathew711 7 months ago
YIkes, too expensive
Corveette 7 months ago
YIkes, noo expensive
Corveette 7 months ago
It's nice and all, but its still a $55k jeep...
barsy07 7 months ago
@barsy07 This jeep is all about making a statement just like buying a porsche! plus if you are the kind of guy buying this, you probably don't worry about the gas mileage and the price. other wise buy a honda.
yvonnicole 1 month ago
so this thing is about 12 grand more exspensive than the last SRT8 jeep and hardly any faster hmmn
09blackcobaltss 7 months ago
@dpain0 I agree. That antenna is visually annoying.
sullyFL 7 months ago
Hey, it's got a German frame and Italian brakes. I guess we (Americans) have finally just given up on engineering our own good cars. And maybe that is for the best.
sullyFL 7 months ago
@sullyFL You seriously shouldnt give up these industries. Or you will end up like England one day.. no industry, just Banks and Investment Groups.. and i guess much of them wont survive the next 10 years.
Pertie 7 months ago
@Pertie Its pretty well already a lot like that.
yvonnicole 1 month ago
@buttnut1080 "Oh, and any off road capability they once had is gone." - In a Jeep? Really? I offroad all the time in mine....Also "SUV" stands for Sport Utility Vehicle. You may think they're "pointless", but Jeep's sales figures beg the point that many do not share your opinion.
RonnocNaveNagol 7 months ago
@RonnocNaveNagol Yeah that's right, any off road capability they had is gone. Just because it's a Jeep doesn't mean it can still go off road after being given lower, stiffer suspension and street tires.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
Thumbs up if you thought the thumbnail was the car doing a burnout
arkansasrazorbackfan 7 months ago
now put this engine in the Wrangler and you will really see sales shoot up.
lawsonmahoney 7 months ago
Rather have it in the 3L diesel like the Euro spec, too bad they won't bring that engine over here:(
lucster1000 7 months ago
mon prochain inchallah
RAI31DZ 7 months ago
Ill take mine in black.....
manfer85225 7 months ago
Nice I like it but I still like the 1st gen still.
MIZQUITLI 7 months ago
interesting styling for a jeep...
Mikedelike 7 months ago
"at home on the track " come on really
hultii 7 months ago 5
@hultii yeah it is! If youve seen some of the test numbers theyve run on it. 70mph through the slalom, 0-60 4.8 - 100-0 in 115ft, skidpad @ .92G's - these numbers are all identical or better than the first gen so performance wise it has remained the same but many other things have improved. The numbers dont lie, it fits in at any track no problem and can go off-road. No its not a 911 or a GTR but itll beat any other stock SUV on planet around the track and drive there :) Sounds like a win to me
antonio105x 7 months ago
Booooring!
drtunset 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 You're forgetting one thing vs those others, this is fast. Look up Grand Cherokee SRT8 vs Audi R8 lol for the old version with 50 less horsepower, worse gas mileage, less interior room, and no towing ability. This new one will be a hit
tommy35ss 7 months ago
@tommy35ss Fast SUV's are a complete waste of money.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 How are fast SUV's pointless and a waste of money? What about the guy who needs a vehicle to seat 5 comfortably and have a lot of trunk space while still having the desire to go fast? Hmmm... wait I know: a fast SUV.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 Or a large sedan with an extended rear end to house things...I think they call it a wagon or something. Iono, it's a weird concept, but I hear it offers nearly all the driving dynamics of a regular with most of the versatility of a midsized SUV without, of course, the raised center of gravity.
I admit that fast SUVs do make good sleepers, though. That, they're good for.
MagicSeal 7 months ago
@MagicSeal Some people don't prefer the look of a wagon though, in which case, an SUV such as this is still appropriate for this segment of the population.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 fast SUV's are fine but i dont see the point in loading a suv w/ an extremely firm suspension to make it handle. a big motor make sense though if there adequate brakes
AlternativeUses 7 months ago
@AlternativeUses I would say that driving fast in a straight line is only half the fun. So then why not give it a firm suspension to make it fun in the twistys, too. This way it'd truly be a fast SUV.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 yeah, the absurdity of a performance SUV aside, i agree with you. it would be pretty cool to be able to use the srt8 as a daily driver from the driving enjoyment standpoint
AlternativeUses 7 months ago
@kfr19 I cannot believe people actually disagree with me on this. Look no matter what I say it's not gonna change your mind so you'll have to use your head a little and figure out why they're so pointless.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 So basically you don't have a response to my comment and you decide to insult me instead. Very mature. The reason why I commented is to understand your thought process and what your opinion is. But apparently you're not worth my time.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 I just can't believe you think they're a good idea. I mean you're talking about one of the most uneconomical and expensive American cars you can buy, all for speed which there really isn't a lot of compared to the sport sedans of today, those of which edge out this Jeep in handling and braking even more so.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 I agree this is an excessive vehicle, but any $50-60k vehicle will be excessive in one way or another... in this case, it's a ridiculously large and powerful engine. I still believe this SRT-8 isn't an awful idea for the person who needs a larger vehicle (more space than a sports sedan can offer) but doesn't want a wagon and still wants to go fast. Sure, braking and handling is a step behind a typical sports sedan, but its 4.8-second 0-60 time is just as good, if not better.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 Of course there's at least some people who'll want any kind of car. I don't know. I've always thought that a really fast SUV was so uneconomical and, on a more opinionated note, uncool compared to say a Charger R/T, Mitsubishi Evo X or Audi S4.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 To be fair, the Evo X isn't exactly economical: 16/22 mpg - better than the SRT8, but that's not saying much. As far as uncool vs. cool, that's very subjective because I don't think the Charger R/T is very cool. I'd easily take the SRT8 and its big V8 over the Charger R/T's V6. Plus, the SRT8 is faster than the Charger R/T and equally as fast as the Evo X and S4, and to me that is very cool. But like you said earlier, we aren't going to change each other's mind, which is fine.
kfr19 7 months ago
@kfr19 I don't think the Charger is very cool either (ps, the R/T has a V8). But that's a car that deserves such a big engine, not some family SUV. I don't know. I would just never buy such a ridiculous car. The 3.7 or 5.7 Cherokee is really nice however, and that retains real off road capability and a comfortable ride.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
@buttnut1080 I wouldn't say that. It can do many things a sports car can't, but as I'm sure you're thinking, in this day and age it's hard to justify such vehicles though with the cost of gas. ): I do prefer the more economical ones with turbo diesels and off road prowess though. Just wish they'd sell the turbo diesel Wrangler here. They even make a turbo diesel Grand Cherokee for Europe
tommy35ss 7 months ago
@tommy35ss I don't mean to sound like a green party rep but there's a line I draw and an SRT Jeep crosses that line. Then there's other things like the fact that it's the most expensive SRT currently made and that with it's beefed up suspension and lowered ride height, it's lost some of its off road prowess. In my opinion, this engine belongs in the Challenger and that's the car I'd happily take.
buttnut1080 7 months ago
Niiice : )
mgibbs88 7 months ago
Too much money
e40cally 7 months ago
5 speed auto fail.
falchard 7 months ago
silver suits this SRT8 very well...me like! Jeep have come a long way.
Autofanatic28 7 months ago
He said 2011......
tblack21 7 months ago
I want one NOW
WRX Owner
JAYFROMHARLEM 7 months ago