2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I'm still baffled why Chrysler thinks that the only way to get more power from an engine is just to make it bigger. The SRT-8 now has a 6.1L putting out something like 420-430hp. Why on earth did they feel they needed to increase the displacement to get more power out of it? People in the aftermarket have tuned their 6.1L up quite a bit and I'm guessing they are getting more than 500hp out of them. It's this lack of ingenuity and engineering that make me dislike American vehicles.

Yeah, but they don't have their warranty.

This is like criticizing the Veyron for only making 1000HP from 8.0L with quad-turbochargers.

 

[Joey D]

I know you don't like American cars, but if you are going to claim that they lack ingenuity and engineering prowess, try to at least pick a valid reason. Thanks.

I see nothing has really changed, just because my opinion goes against yours it does not really require a smart ass response. I believe it is a lack of engineering and ingenuity because they basically looked at the engine and said "hey we want more horsepower so lets just bore it out". I find that to be incredibly lazy and not suited to the current automotive climate. So I believe it is a valid reason. Thanks.

===

And Philly, I agree it's good advertisement but since I essentially own part of Chrysler now I think it's a horrendous waste of time and money to continue the SRT line. Mainly because they are sold here in the states and it seems more and more people aren't buying cars, and if they are they aren't buying something excessive. Seriously Chrysler should focus on make a good compact that isn't the Caliber and a good mid-sized vehicles that isn't the Avenger.

But like I said, I doubt Chrysler will be here long enough to shove the SRT on us.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I see nothing has really changed, just because my opinion goes against yours it does not really require a smart ass response. I believe it is a lack of engineering and ingenuity because they basically looked at the engine and said "hey we want more horsepower so lets just bore it out". I find that to be incredibly lazy and not suited to the current automotive climate. So I believe it is a valid reason. Thanks.

But that is only looking at the engineering side of things, and you may not even be correct about it. They made good gains compared to their other HEMI engines. And the only thing I can see coming from an increase in displacement is reduced city mileage. From the marketing side, the people buying these won't be really that concerned with fuel economy. If they are buying the most powerful "sports" SUV Chrysler offer, then it doesn't seem like they are that concerned. That is where I would agree with you that this truck seems pointless, since there may not even be enough demand for something like this. But by keeping things simple, they will be able to reduce the costs in increasing power and also while also keeping good reliability, which also reduces costs if they still have that unlimited warranty. Plus they're probably still riding the HEMI wave.

 

[Joey D]

But that is only looking at the engineering side of things, and you may not even be correct about it. They made good gains compared to their other HEMI engines. And the only thing I can see coming from an increase in displacement is reduced city mileage. From the marketing side, the people buying these won't be really that concerned with fuel economy. If they are buying the most powerful "sports" SUV Chrysler offer, then it doesn't seem like they are that concerned. That is where I would agree with you that this truck seems pointless, since there may not even be enough demand for something like this. But by keeping things simple, they will be able to reduce the costs in increasing power and also while also keeping good reliability, which also reduces costs if they still have that unlimited warranty. Plus they're probably still riding the HEMI wave.

I agree, there is more to it, however you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. I understand it's all about marketing and why they did it that way. I'm just saying I think they should have used a bit more brainpower and made a halfway decent engine that isn't massive.

However, this is Chrysler and they have proven in the past the best way for them to increase power is just to put a bigger engine in things. I would have to wager that is what they did here as well, although like you I don't really know for sure, it is just what I suspect from previous models.

 

[Jim Prower]

Oy, just leave him alone, people. He doesn't like it, that's fine with me.

Truth be told, I'm more excited about this engine's application in a Charger or Challenger than a Cherokee.

 

[Philly]

And Philly, I agree it's good advertisement but since I essentially own part of Chrysler now I think it's a horrendous waste of time and money to continue the SRT line. Mainly because they are sold here in the states and it seems more and more people aren't buying cars, and if they are they aren't buying something excessive. Seriously Chrysler should focus on make a good compact that isn't the Caliber and a good mid-sized vehicles that isn't the Avenger.

But like I said, I doubt Chrysler will be here long enough to shove the SRT on us.

Agreed. Chrysler does have much more to concentrate on that is important than the SRT-8. I do wonder how much it cost Chrysler to design the SRT-8 given the original GC. If it wasn't too much, it may have been worth it...

I'm surprised Chrysler didn't do the responsible thing and follow GM (and nearly everybody else) by killing their performance division. It would only make sense when you're in a time when A) you can't afford to keep it going and B) nobody is buying those cars anyway.

I seriously doubt Chrysler will make it to summer though.

I'm just saying I think they should have used a bit more brainpower and made a halfway decent engine that isn't massive.

If they were going to do a model like this, I must admit that given their situation, they did choose pretty responsible option. Being strapped for cash, I doubt very many people would be too happy if Chrysler had dumped a ton of money into the development of a more advanced, efficient performance engine. Unless they're trying to make a GT500/Z06 competitor out of the Challenger with the engine.

 

[YSSMAN]

Perhaps thats why the SRT-8 Cherokee is waiting until 2012 to see the streets of America. Not a big deal, really. It seems somewhat likely that FIAT will say "rifiuto" and kill it. Probably. Okay, maybe not. Who knows?

 

[JCE]

I'm still baffled why Chrysler thinks that the only way to get more power from an engine is just to make it bigger. The SRT-8 now has a 6.1L putting out something like 420-430hp. Why on earth did they feel they needed to increase the displacement to get more power out of it? People in the aftermarket have tuned their 6.1L up quite a bit and I'm guessing they are getting more than 500hp out of them. It's this lack of ingenuity and engineering that make me dislike American vehicles.

Also I'm not exactly thrilled this is what my tax dollars are producing. I was kind of hoping Chrysler would drop their SRT line after the government backed a truck load of money up to them. Chrysler needs to make cars people can buy, not cars people think are cool.

I made the same arguement for the GM LSx engine series and everyone yelled at me so its good to see at least one person agreeing with me on the displacement issue. If they tuned the 6.4L to have that power and be better on fuel economy than the 5.7L or 6.1L then I wouldn't be bothered a bit--infact I'd praise it.

Secondly, they don't need to drop the SRT line they need to make it more exclusive.

And that is also something that helps separate the American cars from everybody else. If we all adopted turbo 6s and the like, then there wouldn't be as much separating us from the European cars, and since the Europeans (and Japanese) can build some pretty good cars these days, I'm sure the American muscle cars wouldn't do quite as well.

However, a good performance line is a great advertisement. The reason I've liked GM so much is mostly due to me having grown up loving every Corvette ever made. It was consistently the coolest American car, and it was still cool when nobody else made cool cars. And because of that, General Motors was a cool company in my book. And so then I would probably look more favorably on their products when it comes to buying a car.

And similarly with the Mustang. The 2010 is a sweet looking vehicle, and combined with a decent seeming lineup, Ford rises a few notches in my book. And I'm utterly disappointed with the Camaro, so GM suddenly doesn't seem so cool

Actually musclecars wil always be around in some form or fashion.
If the world drove Japanese econoboxes and Euro city cars almost exclusively there would still be a market for musclecars.

Truth be told, I'm more excited about this engine's application in a Charger or Challenger than a Cherokee.

Me too.

I'm surprised Chrysler didn't do the responsible thing and follow GM (and nearly everybody else) by killing their performance division. It would only make sense when you're in a time when A) you can't afford to keep it going and B) nobody is buying those cars anyway.

omg you cannot be serious. Responsible thing? Killing a performance division means you have NO exciting cars to sell to the public. ZERO. (see Toyota) You can have both a performance division and economy division. Truthfully you can easily not spend much money and make a car faster and more "sporty". But making a car more economical costs more money, so that's why you should spend more money on that than a performance division. BUT that doesn't mean you cannot have both. Infact a company should concentrate on doing both on one model to get the best of both worlds. DOD and DI would make a V8 have better economy and obviously when you drop the hammer it is still a V8.

It seems somewhat likely that FIAT will say "rifiuto" and kill it. Probably. Okay, maybe not. Who knows?

Only if said FIAT goes across the street and steals an engine from Alfa and ships it to the US for use without telling them.

 

[Tornado]

I see nothing has really changed, just because my opinion goes against yours it does not really require a smart ass response.

I too see nothing has changed. You still whine about American cars (and usually Chrysler's specifically) being awful for absurd reasons and then play innocent when someone calls you out on it. But I'll bite anyways:

I believe it is a lack of engineering and ingenuity because they basically looked at the engine and said "hey we want more horsepower so lets just bore it out". I find that to be incredibly lazy and not suited to the current automotive climate. So I believe it is a valid reason. Thanks.

I'm just saying I think they should have used a bit more brainpower and made a halfway decent engine that isn't massive.

However, this is Chrysler and they have proven in the past the best way for them to increase power is just to put a bigger engine in things.

Lets play a little game. What do all of these cars have in common?
Acura RL.
Acura TL.
Acura TSX.
Aston Martin V8 Vantage.
Audi R8.
Audi TT RS.
Ferrari F430.
Ferrari 599GTB.
Ferrari 612 Scaglietti
Honda Accord.
Hyundai Sonata.
Infiniti G37.
Jaguar XF.
Jaguar XK.
Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4.
Lamborghini Murcielago LP640.
Lexus ES-Class.
Lexus GS-Class.
Lexus IS-Class.
Lexus LS-Class.
Lexus SC430.
Maserati Granturismo
Maserati Quattroporte.
Mazda 3.
Mazda 6.
Mazda Miata.
Mercedes Benz C-Class.
Mercedes Benz CL-Class.
Mercedes Benz S-Class.
Mercedes Benz SL-Class.
Mercedes Benz SLK-Class.
Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Nissan 370Z.
Porsche 997 GT3.
Porsche Boxster.
Porsche Cayenne.
Porsche Cayman.
Scion xB.
smart ForTwo.
Subaru B9 Tribeca.
Subaru Legacy.
Toyota Avalon.
Toyota Camry.
Toyota Prius.
Volkswagen GTi.
Volkswagen Passat.
Volkswagen Rabbit/Jetta.
What makes these cars similar (an those are just the cars. If I had bothered to look up more of the SUVs, it would probably be twice as long)? None of these cars are American, and all of them have gotten displacement increases either recently or when they were introduced in order to increase power. So of course they must lack ingenuity and suffer from lazy engineering.


So really, no, it isn't a valid reason, because you are once again knocking Chrysler for doing something that isn't wrong in the slightest; over a measurement that doesn't matter in any meaningful way (a measurement, I might add, that is still quite comparable to its competition in anyways).
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if you found actual things to find fault with (such as your idea about the usefulness of the SRT range, or the purpose of redesigning an SUV in a time where people are not really buying them, or the potential problems with the interior quality) rather than doing your typical "I hate American cars because of X even when X doesn't apply" rants. I do think it would be fantastic if Chrysler came out with a 5.7 Hemi that had 500 horses instead of a 6.4 one; but then I remember that you will still have over 500 HP to play with, a nice torque curve to play in, and a HP/L measurement that isn't particularly low regardless.

 

[JCE]

Ok lets be real. Yes everyone does it, but at least most of those you listed have or are economy models. I'll exclude the obvious Lamborghinis and the like due to them being supercars and they are exempt. The regular cars for regiular people are what I'm referring. Right now those companies are spending as much or more on economy than performance but they at least are doing both. It doesn't seem that the big three are doing as good of a job. Until there is a diesel or tiny 1.2L I4 in a Focus, Cobalt or whatever small car Chrysler puts out then they are not really trying. The Cobalt SS can go perfectly well with a Cobalt LT-d (diesel). You can have your cake and eat it too--problem is they aren't really doing it. What makes me angry is that GM and Ford already have these powerplants in Europe and elsewhere.

Keep in mind my arguement is different than Joey's a bit and I'm not defending him perse--I'm just making my point clear.

Now lets get back to drooling over this SRT8.

 

[Tornado]

I certainly agree. Chrysler in particular needs a small car that isn't made up of FAIL. I hope that the FIAT deal fixes that, or at the very least makes the problem go away.

I do think the Cobalt's decent if you need a decent MPG cruiser, so long as you keep away from the 2.4L. We'll see what the Cruze has in store for us if it ever gets here.

 

[YSSMAN]

Only if said FIAT goes across the street and steals an engine from Alfa and ships it to the US for use without telling them.

Not that it means much, but my understanding of the new Pentastar V6 program launched with this Cherokee is that it will replace pretty much all of the V6s at Chrysler, and will be used in Alfa Romeo products as well. Not too bad, really.

 

[Joey D]

If they were going to do a model like this, I must admit that given their situation, they did choose pretty responsible option. Being strapped for cash, I doubt very many people would be too happy if Chrysler had dumped a ton of money into the development of a more advanced, efficient performance engine. Unless they're trying to make a GT500/Z06 competitor out of the Challenger with the engine.

I made the same arguement for the GM LSx engine series and everyone yelled at me so its good to see at least one person agreeing with me on the displacement issue. If they tuned the 6.4L to have that power and be better on fuel economy than the 5.7L or 6.1L then I wouldn't be bothered a bit--infact I'd praise it.

Chrysler should have done it like Ford did with the EcoBoost, more horsepower and better mileage. That's technology they could actually use in other application and still have cars that don't bore the driver to tears. This is the time for the American automotive industry to bring out something new to the market people want to buy. This is just more of the same, which obviously has not worked for Detroit because if it had I wouldn't see so many local people out of a job.

I really wish Americans would wake up and see that bigger does not always equal better.

I too see nothing has changed. You still whine about American cars (and usually Chrysler's specifically) being awful for absurd reasons and then play innocent when someone calls you out on it. But I'll bite anyways:

Ah personal attacks, I love them. Why not stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to throw mud at me? It is really not that difficult to disagree with someone and be civil about it.

I don't really think my reasoning is that absurd and you are really the only one who seems to have a huge problem with it. I guess that is what the ignore list is for, though.

 

[JCE]

I certainly agree. Chrysler in particular needs a small car that isn't made up of FAIL. I hope that the FIAT deal fixes that, or at the very least makes the problem go away.

I do think the Cobalt's decent if you need a decent MPG cruiser, so long as you keep away from the 2.4L. We'll see what the Cruze has in store for us if it ever gets here.

A reskinned and badged Fiat 500 would work almost perfectly. I would even consider buying one if it drives like it should. You know what American car makers need to do is do what Japan did many moons ago in turbocharging a small I4--and I mean below 1.8L in displacement. They still produce ample amount of power while still being economical. Or can they lease out a diesel from Seat/VW?

Not that it means much, but my understanding of the new Pentastar V6 program launched with this Cherokee is that it will replace pretty much all of the V6s at Chrysler, and will be used in Alfa Romeo products as well. Not too bad, really.

Really? An Alfa sourced V6 in an American car? Where do I sign? I just hope it makes the same sorts of pants-happy noises that they do in Italy.

Chrysler should have done it like Ford did with the EcoBoost, more horsepower and better mileage. That's technology they could actually use in other application and still have cars that don't bore the driver to tears.

Ford's EcoBoost is actually a huge step in the right direction. Replace some V8 applications with the TT V6 and some V6 applications with the TT I4. GM, Chrysler are you listening? I'd say the Ford EcoBoost experiment is so far a success even in its infancy.

 

[Joey D]

Ford's EcoBoost is actually a huge step in the right direction. Replace some V8 applications with the TT V6 and some V6 applications with the TT I4. GM, Chrysler are you listening? I'd say the Ford EcoBoost experiment is so far a success even in its infancy.

I think it's rather daft GM and Chrysler aren't trying to come up with something similar since fuel prices will go back up sooner rather than later. People are still going to want quick, fun to drive vehicles that get good mileage. I know I would look at a Ford with an EcoBoost over a similar GM or Chrysler product, mainly because of the power vs. fuel economy factor.

Americans for some reason don't understand the turbo charger and when they do get a hold of it, they over do it. Look at the Caliber SRT-4, it has some of the worse torque steer in the sport compact market. Somehow the Cobalt SS managed to get by and not fail in the handling department. I really hope Ford pulls this off right since it will be a huge leap forward for how American cars are viewed.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I agree, there is more to it, however you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. I understand it's all about marketing and why they did it that way. I'm just saying I think they should have used a bit more brainpower and made a halfway decent engine that isn't massive.

You're being very vague here. Why isn't the engine halfway decent? What makes adding displacement bad? It just seems like you keep picking on this HP/L issue for no reason, other than because you think more specific output is better. Who knows if those tuner cars will be as reliable as this car, or whether they actually get better fuel efficiency, or whether the engine weighs more or takes up more space? That's just a bad reason.

Obviously this is not going to be a car that is eco-friendly whether it has 50HP/L or 120HP/L.

 

[Philly]

omg you cannot be serious. Responsible thing? Killing a performance division means you have NO exciting cars to sell to the public. ZERO. (see Toyota) You can have both a performance division and economy division. Truthfully you can easily not spend much money and make a car faster and more "sporty". But making a car more economical costs more money, so that's why you should spend more money on that than a performance division. BUT that doesn't mean you cannot have both. Infact a company should concentrate on doing both on one model to get the best of both worlds. DOD and DI would make a V8 have better economy and obviously when you drop the hammer it is still a V8.

I'm pretty serious. Toyota is a completely different situation. I don't know what made them go all lame and kill their entire sporty image. But Chrysler is in a pretty different situation. Chrysler is a company that has zero products that anybody would want to buy (save maybe a select few that can't support the company). If I'm going to be throwing money at a mainstream automaker, the last thing I want to see them doing is building niche cars. Chrysler's top priorities need to be getting this rumored new 300 out ASAP, hurrying up the next Sebring and compact and getting a good 4-cylinder from FIAT. They need to get the cars that will support them out now so they can stay afloat.

Yes, brand image through performance cars is important, but it's better to have the company still around but with no sporty image than it is to have no company no matter how awesome the cars they built were. Although, if it only costs $20 to make the conversion to a sweet SRT machine, then be my guest.

Unless they're just tossing in the cards, in which case I can't wait to see an SRT-10 Caliber.

Chrysler should have done it like Ford did with the EcoBoost, more horsepower and better mileage. That's technology they could actually use in other application and still have cars that don't bore the driver to tears. This is the time for the American automotive industry to bring out something new to the market people want to buy. This is just more of the same, which obviously has not worked for Detroit because if it had I wouldn't see so many local people out of a job.

I agree that they should do something like that sometime, but now isn't the time to be spending money developing an all new V6TT. I would guess that the Phoenix and the 5.7 should be enough to hold them over until they can spend the money on such an engine program. Because what I see right now is a company that has mediocre, maybe better drivetrains, and terrible products. They need to focus on getting the product up to par. Because no matter how good the drivetrain is, nobody's going to buy it if the car looks ugly and screams of cheapness everywhere else. And it doesn't sound like they can afford to set up such a new engine and bring their cars up to par at the same time in the amount of time they have.

 

[Joey D]

You're being very vague here. Why isn't the engine halfway decent? What makes adding displacement bad? It just seems like you keep picking on this HP/L issue for no reason, other than because you think more specific output is better.

Obviously this is not going to be a car that is eco-friendly whether it has 50HP/L or 120HP/L.

I don't believe I'm being vague, but I will try to explain things more clearly. I don't see the point in giving it a bigger engine when the previous one already had quite a large one to begin with. The current SRT-8 is rated at 420hp, getting 80 more horses out of a 6.1L shouldn't be difficult at all since people do it in the aftermarket. I see no reason to keep adding displacement when the engine is already huge, if the engine was already tapped on it's potential then yes adding more displacement makes sense.

The Europeans and Japanese can make a quick car with quite a bit of horsepower from much smaller engines. Lets take the Nissan GT-R as an example, it produces 485hp from a 3.6L V6, maybe it's a bad example but any car enthusiast should be able to see that the European and Japanese automakers can squeeze more power out of a smaller engine than American automakers.

I'm just giving the reason why I don't like it, it's just my opinion on it and I'm not out to change anyone's mind.

I agree that they should do something like that sometime, but now isn't the time to be spending money developing an all new V6TT. I would guess that the Phoenix and the 5.7 should be enough to hold them over until they can spend the money on such an engine program. Because what I see right now is a company that has mediocre, maybe better drivetrains, and terrible products. They need to focus on getting the product up to par. Because no matter how good the drivetrain is, nobody's going to buy it if the car looks ugly and screams of cheapness everywhere else. And it doesn't sound like they can afford to set up such a new engine and bring their cars up to par at the same time in the amount of time they have.

Chrysler needs to do something though to stand out from the rest. It's a case of evolution, one either needs to change, adapt, or die. That are the only three choices available to Chrysler and they are proving they aren't real hard pressed to change or adapt, so I see them on the road to death. As much as I dislike Chrysler's products, I don't want to see them go under since it will be a huge blow to an already ailing economy here in Detroit.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I don't believe I'm being vague, but I will try to explain things more clearly. I don't see the point in giving it a bigger engine when the previous one already had quite a large one to begin with. The current SRT-8 is rated at 420hp, getting 80 more horses out of a 6.1L shouldn't be difficult at all since people do it in the aftermarket. I see no reason to keep adding displacement when the engine is already huge, if the engine was already tapped on it's potential then yes adding more displacement makes sense.

The Europeans and Japanese can make a quick car with quite a bit of horsepower from much smaller engines. Lets take the Nissan GT-R as an example, it produces 485hp from a 3.6L V6, maybe it's a bad example but any car enthusiast should be able to see that the European and Japanese automakers can squeeze more power out of a smaller engine than American automakers.

I'm just giving the reason why I don't like it, it's just my opinion on it and I'm not out to change anyone's mind.

I added this after the edit:

Who knows if those tuner cars will be as reliable as this car, or whether they actually get better fuel efficiency, or whether the engine weighs more or takes up more space? That's just a bad reason.

Sure the GT-R gets 485HP out of 3.6L. But just like I said before the only advantage that I can see to having a smaller displacement engine is better city fuel mileage. Hell the GT-Rs engine with the turbos and all that could possibly weigh more and take up more space than the HEMI in the SRT8. And since it more high strung, the engine's reliability will not be bulletproof.

 

[Tornado]

Ah personal attacks, I love them. Why not stick to the topic at hand instead of trying to throw mud at me?

I see nothing has really changed, just because my opinion goes against yours it does not really require a smart ass response.

Pot, meet kettle. The fact that you ignored the part where I actually explained my reasoning against your "point" and instead decided to play the innocent bystander card (once again) tells me that you don't really care about actually debating the matter anyways, as Joey's Word is law as it always seems to be. Its hardly the first time you've done it, and its getting pretty tiring, so ignore me. Saves me the trouble of trying to have a discussion with you. I'll leave you off my list, if only because when you actually do do the research for your arguments they are always well written and insightful

But Chrysler is in a pretty different situation. Chrysler is a company that has zero products that anybody would want to buy (save maybe a select few that can't support the company). If I'm going to be throwing money at a mainstream automaker, the last thing I want to see them doing is building niche cars. Chrysler's top priorities need to be getting this rumored new 300 out ASAP, hurrying up the next Sebring and compact and getting a good 4-cylinder from FIAT. They need to get the cars that will support them out now so they can stay afloat.

I have to agree with this in a way. While I do like (most of) the SRT range, it is hard to view it as anything more than superfluous when the only cars that have that much value are the ones that are being chosen to be SRT'd in the first place. The Charger SRT being wicked-awesome does little for me when the car I'd probably end up with is the Sebring, nor does it keep me from thinking that those wicked-awesome dollars would probably be better spent on the wicked-awful Sebring.

 

[harrytuttle]

Sure the GT-R gets 485HP out of 3.6L. But just like I said before the only advantage that I can see to having a smaller displacement engine is better city fuel mileage. Hell the GT-Rs engine with the turbos and all that could possibly weigh more and take up more space than the HEMI in the SRT8. And since it more high strung, the engine's reliability will not be bulletproof.

I still have trouble believing the same misconstrued ideas about "efficiency" keep coming back...oh, wait...it's the interwebtubularbells. Everything comes around again. Anyway.

Say out loud to yourself: A more efficient engine is more efficient than a less efficient one.

That's it. There's no magic formula to this. There are so many variables to what constitutes efficiency in terms of either fuel economy or engine output. Look at Mercedes-Benz: E55 from 1998 was a naturally aspriated V8, the E55 from 2001 was supercharged, and now the E63 is naturally aspriated again. Each time they said "this is more efficient". Audi did the same with the S4: single-turbo inline-5, twin-turbo V6, n/a V8, now on to a supercharged V6. Same line each time: "this is more efficient". So what have we learned? "A more efficient engine is more efficient than a less efficient one."

Some examples for the class: all from Edmunds, all 2009 models.

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8
425HP
6.1L V8
11/14 mpg

Nissan GT-R
480HP
3.8L twin-turbo V6
16/21 mpg

Porsche 911 Turbo
480HP
3.6L twin-turbo V6
16/23 mpg

Mercedes-Benz E63
507HP
6.2L V8
13/20 mpg

Dodge Viper coupe
600HP
8.4L V10
13/22 mpg


These all make somewhere around 450HP, but all do it in different ways, with vastly different body styles. The very fact that the Nissan and Porsche have turbochargers throws the whole idea of comparing these engines using HP/L out the window since you'd have to get some rather specific details about those turbo's to know exactly how to calculate what the output "per litre" really is.

Then there's the obvious fact that since the Cherokee is a honking big SUV, maybe Chrysler don't give a damn about efficiency in terms of HP, but rather in terms of torque output. They've got that rather bluff front end to contend with....

 

[JCE]

I still have trouble believing the same misconstrued ideas about "efficiency" keep coming back...oh, wait...it's the interwebtubularbells. Everything comes around again. Anyway.

Say out loud to yourself: A more efficient engine is more efficient than a less efficient one.

That's it. There's no magic formula to this. There are so many variables to what constitutes efficiency in terms of either fuel economy or engine output. Look at Mercedes-Benz: E55 from 1998 was a naturally aspriated V8, the E55 from 2001 was supercharged, and now the E63 is naturally aspriated again. Each time they said "this is more efficient". Audi did the same with the S4: single-turbo inline-5, twin-turbo V6, n/a V8, now on to a supercharged V6. Same line each time: "this is more efficient". So what have we learned? "A more efficient engine is more efficient than a less efficient one."

Some examples for the class: all from Edmunds, all 2009 models.

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8
425HP
6.1L V8
11/14 mpg

Nissan GT-R
480HP
3.8L twin-turbo V6
16/21 mpg

Porsche 911 Turbo
480HP
3.6L twin-turbo V6
16/23 mpg

Mercedes-Benz E63
507HP
6.2L V8
13/20 mpg

Dodge Viper coupe
600HP
8.4L V8
13/22 mpg


These all make somewhere around 450HP, but all do it in different ways, with vastly different body styles. The very fact that the Nissan and Porsche have turbochargers throws the whole idea of comparing these engines using HP/L out the window since you'd have to get some rather specific details about those turbo's to know exactly how to calculate what the output "per litre" really is.

Then there's the obvious fact that since the Cherokee is a honking big SUV, maybe Chrysler don't give a damn about efficiency in terms of HP, but rather in terms of torque output. They've got that rather bluff front end to contend with....

The Viper has a V10 and not V8 btw.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Some examples for the class: all from Edmunds, all 2009 models.

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8
425HP
6.1L V8
11/14 mpg

Nissan GT-R
480HP
3.8L twin-turbo V6
16/21 mpg

Porsche 911 Turbo
480HP
3.6L twin-turbo V6
16/23 mpg

Mercedes-Benz E63
507HP
6.2L V8
13/20 mpg

Dodge Viper coupe
600HP
8.4L V8
13/22 mpg

Then there's the obvious fact that since the Cherokee is a honking big SUV, maybe Chrysler don't give a damn about efficiency in terms of HP, but rather in terms of torque output. They've got that rather bluff front end to contend with....

You can see that generally the lower displacement cars get better city mileage, however they are able to get pretty similar highway mileage most likely with some help from gearing. The SRT8 is down in both areas, probably because of it's weight and brick-like shape.

 

[harrytuttle]

You can see that generally the lower displacement cars get better city mileage, however they are able to get pretty similar highway mileage most likely with some help from gearing. The SRT8 is down in both areas, probably because of it's weight and brick-like shape.

Um, yes...which was part of the point....

 

[Smallhorses]

Porsche 911 Turbo
480HP
3.6L twin-turbo V6
16/23 mpg

I'm pretty sure the Porsche 911 hasn't got a V6. It's a flat-six.
Always has been in the 911.

 

[TVC]

I'm pretty sure the Porsche 911 hasn't got a V6. It's a flat-six.
Always has been in the 911.

It's definitely a flat-six. A V6 would be kind of awkward...

Damn right, one of the few good factory off-roaders still available. It's funny because the Wrangler is the only vehicle where a poor fitting, hard to the touch, spartan interior is a good thing, and where a rough ride doesn't matter.

That's the problem though. More people are buying jeeps these days because you can take the roof and doors off than for it's off-road capabilities. The only reason anyone buys them is because there isn't really anything to compete with it in it's price range (Icon's are much nicer).

 

[homeforsummer]

Really? An Alfa sourced V6 in an American car? Where do I sign? I just hope it makes the same sorts of pants-happy noises that they do in Italy.

My understanding of this:

Not that it means much, but my understanding of the new Pentastar V6 program launched with this Cherokee is that it will replace pretty much all of the V6s at Chrysler, and will be used in Alfa Romeo products as well. Not too bad, really.

...was that the V6 was of American design, rather than an Alfa V6 in an American car. In which case, if they're planning on using it in Alfas, this is not a good thing. The current (GM) V6 they use in cars like the Brera and 159 is already less characterful and less tuneful than Alfa's previous V6 used in the 156 and various models going back (plus the engine itself isn't as beautiful to behold). It saddens me a little that Alfa are using a generic V6, but I suppose with world economics in the state it's in, co-development is very necessary.

 

[buickgnx88]

That's the problem though. More people are buying jeeps these days because you can take the roof and doors off than for it's off-road capabilities. The only reason anyone buys them is because there isn't really anything to compete with it in it's price range (Icon's are much nicer).

Well that's why they introduced the 2WD Unlimited, so people can have a Wrangler and be able to go topless, yet they don't need the 4WD. Trust me though when I say there are still plenty of people buying it for its capabilities, especially since it's the most off-road capable Wrangler from factory to date.

 

[Philly]

...was that the V6 was of American design, rather than an Alfa V6 in an American car. In which case, if they're planning on using it in Alfas, this is not a good thing. The current (GM) V6 they use in cars like the Brera and 159 is already less characterful and less tuneful than Alfa's previous V6 used in the 156 and various models going back (plus the engine itself isn't as beautiful to behold). It saddens me a little that Alfa are using a generic V6, but I suppose with world economics in the state it's in, co-development is very necessary.

This really seems to be the way that the auto industry as a whole is moving. It seems like the days where everyone goes out and builds their own car with a unique engine (except GM, Ford and Chrysler who each build about 20 versions of the same car) and everything are ending, so you'll see more companies will be sharing new things. Chrysler has already become pretty good at this with their co-developed engines with Mitsubishi and the supposed platform sharing with Nissan. And then Mercedes and BMW are in talks of sharing things between the two of them.

And it does kind of make sense that you'll have the company that is good at one thing doing what they do best, and sharing that. It'll save cost and hopefully make better cars. But at the same time, it will be sad to see your local auto mall turning into what is essentially a giant GM-style dealer, where the cars are all essentially the same thing.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't believe that its their dubious intent to create cars that are all the same; Its all about cutting costs across the board. That's why BMW bought high-strength transmissions from GM for years, and why Ford decided to co-develop with them for their new FWD setup.

While it certainly may be "boring" for some companies to buy other bits and pieces from another, but often times, they'll put their own twist on the pieces to make it their own. Mazda did it with their hand-me-down 3.0L Duratec V6s, Aston did it with the AJV8s, and so on.

Of course, it all depends. In this current crop of buy-and-share vehicles, not many have been successes (Routan comes to mind), and I'm doubting that it will continue too long into the future.