R&T Chariots of Fire - The Sportiest Six of the Sport Utilities

Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by TriShield, Nov 6, 2006.

  1. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,798
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    These six completely redefine the "sport" in sport-utility vehicle.

    [​IMG]

    By Mike Monticello • Photos By Marc Urbano
    November 2006

    Before you start sending in hate mail about how SUVs don’t belong on the pages of Road & Track, keep in mind this is one of those once-every-five-years-or-so occurrences; see, the boss doesn’t particularly care for SUVs, so regular testing of these fuel-chugging heavyweights is not about to start anytime soon.

    But with more and more manufacturers getting in on the performance SUV bandwagon, we just couldn’t resist gathering a few together to see how well (or poorly) they work. And as you can’t drive one of these without thinking about similarities/differences to cars, we included some interesting SUV vs. car comparisons along the way.

    The goal of our Battle of the Beasts was to find out just how far the performance SUV has come. Because of huge price discrepancies amongst our group, though, this was more of a “Let’s see what these things will do” than a “This one’s better than that one” comparo.

    You’ll notice the lack of Porsche’s latest Wunderwagen — the 520-bhp Cayenne Turbo S — and Mercedes-Benz’s 503-bhp ML63 AMG. Unfortunately, neither manufacturer had a U.S. version ready in time to make our story.

    Regardless, the following six represent what SUVs are capable of, if tuned by the right people at the right companies. They certainly aren’t the most utilitarian, and they aren’t for everyone. But we think you’ll be quite surprised by how well they performed.

    The SUV advantage

    Why buy an SUV over a sedan or a wagon, both of which are lighter and use less fuel? Most people name reasons such as a higher seating position, all-wheel drive (though many cars have this option now), increased load capacity — due to higher rooflines, easy-to-load hatchback designs and larger overall dimensions — and better ground clearance. Also, SUVs are for some reason judged “cooler” than station wagons.

    That being said, there’s no getting around the weight of these SUVs, which carry an extra 1000–2000 lb. over a comparable car. It didn’t go unnoticed on the brakes. The Jeep’s Brembos, with oversize 14.2-in. front rotors and 13.8-in. rears (giving a swept area per ton of 264 sq. in.), rank as possibly the best ever fitted to an SUV; yet they cannot come close to matching a car like the Audi RS 4, with a smaller swept area (585 sq. in. compared to 634 for the Jeep) but a greater swept area per ton — 299 sq. in. This was proven to us very quickly as all of the SUVs suffered from brake fade throughout our aggressive test.

    To SUV or not to SUV gets even more complicated when vehicles like the Jeep, for example, lose utility along the way to achieving better on-road manners. Maybe Infiniti has had it right the whole time. For if we agree that most people never take their SUVs off road, a crossover SUV like the FX45 provides exactly what people are looking for: It looks big and tough like an SUV, but performs as well, or better than, many sports sedans.

    PORSCHE CAYENNE TURBO

    [​IMG]

    Better 0–60 than a Nissan 350Z
    Better through the slalom than a Mercedes-Benz E55 AMG wagon
    Better bring lots of cash!


    As far as sport utes go, the Porsche Cayenne is considered king; after all, it’s the only one that can truly be called “the Porsche of SUVs.” After the Cayenne’s announcement, and prior to its arrival, many were skeptical, claiming it would dilute the brand. It’s been a resounding success, with the Cayenne quite often outselling the venerable 911 on a month-to-month basis here in the U.S.

    The Cayenne Turbo certainly isn’t lacking in the go department. It’s the most powerful in our group, with 450 bhp streaming from its 4.5-liter twin-turbocharged V-8, with sounds likened to a jet engine. There is a bit of turbo lag initially, but an earth-moving 460 lb.-ft. of torque from 2250–4750 rpm helps the Cayenne Turbo sprint to 60 mph in just 5.3 seconds and through the quarter mile in 13.9, both remarkable feats considering its none-too-spry curb weight of 5610 lb.

    If there’s an Achilles’ heel of the Cayenne Turbo, it’s just that — too much weight.
    Attribute it to Porsche’s need to make the Cayenne’s suspension and all-wheel-drive system capable of taking on Range Rovers off-road. On the road, it doesn’t remind much of a Porsche, with a front end that “gives up” too early.

    Still, the Cayenne Turbo won much praise during our multi-day, largely backroad high-speed romp. Resident Porsche fanatic and Editor-at-Large Joe Rusz said the Cayenne Turbo “outperforms, out-handles and out-classes everything here, or possibly in the entire SUV world.” Joe didn’t have the benefit of studying the raw performance numbers, which clearly show the Cayenne Turbo is neither the quickest nor the best-handling of our group, though it’s close. Photographer (and noted hard charger) Marc Urbano agreed with Joe that the Cayenne makes you feel invincible, saying, “Although it wasn’t the most fun, I felt the most comfortable flogging the Cayenne.”

    Part of what makes the Cayenne feel safe is its understeering nature, though we felt it was dialed in too excessively and unbecoming of a Porsche. But because of this, you’d be hard-pressed to make a serious driving error. We also found the Cayenne doesn’t allow for brake and throttle overlap, meaning if you are left-foot braking and get back on the throttle early, power is immediately cut — annoying! And Porsche’s steering-wheel-mounted Tiptronic shifters were non-intuitive to me and my learning-disabled brain — I finally gave up and switched back to the console lever to shift the 6-speed automatic in its manual mode.

    These gripes notwithstanding, we marveled at how well the Cayenne Turbo’s sophisticated suspension handled everything we threw at it, including some nasty, bumpy, twisty country roads with broken pavement. It was on these roads the Porsche’s suspension tuning shined, and the superior technology and incredible thrust of the Cayenne stood out.

    Price as tested $95,800
    Curb weight 5610 lb
    Engine, transmission 4.5 liter V-8tt; 6-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 450 @ 6000
    0–60 mph 5.3 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.9 sec @ 101.2mph
    Top speed 165 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 127 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 219 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.83g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 63.5 mph
    Our mileage 10.8mpg
    Towing capacity 7715lb


    INFINITI FX45

    [​IMG]

    Better braking from 80 mph than an Infiniti G35x
    Better through the slalom than an Audi A3 2.0 T
    Better looking than an armadillo?


    Maybe the armadillo look-alike crack is a bit harsh, but seriously, the crossover-ish FX45’s styling has always been a bit “out there.” It was updated for 2006 with a new grille, front bumper and 20-in. wheel design, while the suspension tuning was revised slightly with new dampers.
    The FX45 is no spring chicken (to keep with the animal analogies), having been on the market since 2003. Yet we’ve never tested one. What we found out is that it’s simply one of the best performance SUVs in the world.

    The FX45 is neither a bruiser like the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, nor a capable off-roader like the Range Rover. But it gives the most sedan-like feel of any vehicle in this group, no doubt due to the Nissan FM (Front Mid-ship) car platform that it rides on. Because of its light weight (relatively speaking — 4530 lb. is not exactly light) and low-to-the-ground feel, the FX45 was more comfortable being tossed around in the really tight stuff than any of the others, its outright grip proven by tying the Jeep for best skidpad result.

    Where the FX45 is lacking is in straight-line acceleration, at least amongst this group. Don’t get us wrong, its Q45-based 4.5-liter V-8 is no slouch, putting out 320 bhp and 335 lb.-ft. of torque. But what’s noticeable is the lack of bottom-end grunt and V-8 sound, especially compared to the throaty Americans. The FX45 is instead smooth and quiet, almost feminine and V-6-like in delivery.

    Assistant Road Test Editor Jonathan Elfalan, strangely eager to prove the FX isn’t effeminate, said, “The FX45 makes up for what it lacks in brute power with less mass and superb handling. It responds well to trail braking and is the only one in which I encountered occasional instances of over-rotation.” Which is another way of saying he almost drove it off the road.

    Most of us were impressed with the FX’s 5-speed automatic in manual mode (operated via the center console lever), its rev-matching downshifts an enthusiast’s delight; in full automatic mode, the shifts are near-imperceptible. Joe wasn’t a fan, though, twice accidentally knocking the lever from the manual mode into full automatic during spirited driving, which killed his corner exit…and his fun: “Really annoying and a bit unnerving,” he called it.

    Other gripes were thrown toward the odd, buslike angle of the steering wheel. It could be electrically adjusted downward, but, because the instrument cluster moves with it, only so far before the gauges were blocked.

    Marc was thoroughly impressed with the FX, calling it “the most enjoyable to drive on a day-to-day basis.” But he questioned its design, asking, “In 10 years will I still appreciate its bold styling or will it become just another eyesore on the road?”

    We’re not sure, but for now, anyway, we’re enjoying the ride.

    Price as tested $50,400
    Curb weight 4530 lb
    Engine, transmission 4.5 liter V-8; 5-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 320 @ 6000
    0–60 mph 6.1 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.6 sec @ 96.3 mph
    Top speed 142 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 120 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 213 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.85g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 63.0 mph
    Our mileage 14.9mpg
    Towing capacity 3500lb


    JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE SRT8

    [​IMG]

    Quicker to 60 mph than a Porsche Cayman S
    Quicker around the skidpad than a Ford Mustang GT
    Quicker through gas than a Dodge Viper


    The Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the new bad-ass SUV. From its super-low front air dam — that screams “not even close to Trail Rated” — to its 20-in. chrome wheels to its dual-outlet central exhaust (for which Mopar builds a special, optional tow hitch to circumnavigate) to its big ol’ Hemi, trust us, it’s all good. And bad.

    In outright speed, it flat spanked every vehicle here. Jeep has been bragging that the GC SRT8 runs to 60 mph in under 5.0 sec., wet or dry. They weren’t lying: In our testing it ripped to 60 in just 4.6 sec. and to the quarter mile in 13.2 at 104.1 mph. Those are sports-car numbers! Apparently this is what happens when you strap a raunchy-sounding 6.1-liter V-8 with 420 bhp and 420 lb.-ft. of torque to a 4800-lb. all-wheel-drive vehicle. Four-wheel powerslides come standard.

    So what makes the GC SRT8 so good, so different, if you will, from a regular Grand Cherokee? Plain and simple, the gentlemen over at SRT (Street and Racing Technology). To put all that extra power to the road, they reengineered the all-wheel-drive system with a new transfer case, front axle and a sturdier rear with a Dana 44 differential. But the biggest difference is felt when you throw the GC SRT8 into a curve. In a typical Jeep, you’d be met with varying degrees of squish; with the SRT8, rock-solid handling. A 1.0-in.-lower ride height, Bilstein dampers, stiffer springs, larger anti-roll bars and 255/45R-20 front tires and 285/40R-20 rears transform the GC SRT8 from ho-hum SUV into sports-car competitor.

    Not that it’s without faults. Road Test Editor Shaun Bailey complained that it “has little head room, tight interior space and hardly any ground clearance; there isn’t much utility to it.” Jonathan countered that “the Jeep’s seats are definitely the best of the bunch, the only ones with any kind of lateral support.” The Jeep would also benefit greatly in spirited driving if the 5-speed AutoStick performed rev-matching downshifts, like the Infiniti and Range Rover. And Marc reckoned the ride is “too firm for all but the most performance-oriented enthusiasts.”

    Those are the ones this single-minded Jeep is aimed at; people who will go out and find its limits on a back road, and will find out that, yes, it can be provoked to oversteer on corner entry, and yes, again on corner exit as it spins all four tires. Maybe Marc summed up the GC SRT8 best when he said, “The Jeep is what the Cayenne should have been — focused 100 percent on performance; road performance, that is.

    Of note, the Jeep was the only one in our group that suffered from sporadic elevated engine temperatures. In truth, we were driving the heck out of it, like few sane people would. Still, a bit disconcerting.

    Price as tested $45,630
    Curb weight 4805 lb
    Engine, transmission 6.1 liter V-8; 5-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 420 @ 6200
    0–60 mph 4.6 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 13.2 sec @ 104.1 mph
    Top speed est 155 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 132 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 230 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.85g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 63.5 mph
    Our mileage 11.2mpg
    Towing capacity 3500lb


    LAND ROVER RANGE ROVER SPORT SUPERCHARGED

    [​IMG]

    Better around the skidpad than an Acura TSX
    Better braking from 80 mph than a Mercedes-Benz E350 Sport
    Not better than a Toyota Prius through the slalom — that’s just embarrassing!


    One of the editors, who shall remain nameless (we’ll call him “Mike”), was vehemently against including Land Rover’s Range Rover Sport Supercharged in this test. It had been at the office previously, and said editor felt it didn’t provide enough sport to warrant inclusion in a test of “the best.”

    Overruled as usual by his fellow editors, the Range Rover Sport came along for the ride. And promptly posted the worst acceleration numbers, the worst slalom time and the second-to-worst skidpad run of the group. Yet along the way, all of us, including “Mike,” came to like and respect it.

    And let’s be realistic: the Range Rover Sport is far from slow. Its 4.2-liter supercharged V-8 puts out 390 bhp and 410 lb.-ft. of torque, enabling it to hit 60 mph in 6.6 sec., despite a curb weight of 5840 lb. That’s acceleration equal to a Honda Civic Si! But its test-worst fuel mileage of 10.3 mpg shows just how hard we had to work the throttle pedal for this Brit to keep up with the other lads.

    Unfortunately it didn’t make up much ground once the road turned curvy. With all that weight and a tall center of gravity, high-speed sweepers made it feel floaty. And the brakes — despite measuring 14.2 in. Up front — faded quickly, exacerbated by an extremely long pedal travel. Marc wasn’t a fan of the steering, either, saying “the numb on-center feel surprised me because it reminded me of my parents’ Range Rover from the late ’80s.”

    Jonathan felt the off-road background of the Range Rover Sport — which is essentially a minimized version of the full-size Range Rover’s body dropped onto the LR3’s platform — was its downfall: “Land Rover has tried to disguise the truck’s true nature in order to make it into something it wasn’t meant to be — that of a sporty vehicle.”

    Negativity aside, we still found much to like about the Range Rover Sport. For instance, its monstrous tires — 275/40R-20s at all four corners — give it a sure-footed nature. And that long-travel suspension works wonders on rough back roads, keeping the tires squarely in contact with the pavement. The tighter, bumpier, crappier the road, the more at ease the Range Rover felt. We were also surprised to find the Range Rover’s 6-speed automatic performed rev-matching downshifts when operated in its manual mode.

    To a man, everyone commented on the Range Rover’s high style, Marc calling it “the best design of the bunch” and Joe saying he “likes the massive, aggressive looks.” Inside, the Range Rover impressed with its luxurious appointments (especially the onboard electric drink cooler), and its fit and finish.

    Despite all the comments about it being down in the sport quotient to the others, Jonathan said, “The Range Rover would absolutely be my pick for a laid-back road trip with friends.”

    Price as tested $76,150
    Curb weight 5840 lb
    Engine, transmission 4.2 liter V-8s; 6-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 390 @ 5750
    0–60 mph 6.6 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 15.0 sec @ 93.5 mph
    Top speed 140 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 126 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 223 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.79g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 56.8 mph
    Our mileage 10.3mpg
    Towing capacity 7715lb


    CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZER SS

    [​IMG]

    Better to 60 mph than a VW GTI 2.0 T
    Better stops from 60 mph than a Lexus IS 350
    Is it better enough to be labeled an SS?


    The first time heading home from the office in a TrailBlazer SS, I drove it hard into my favorite right-hander to get a feel for the changes Chevy made to the suspension. The tail started to come around slightly, so I did what any red-blooded, American male would do and I hammered the throttle to see if it would carry even a small amount of all-wheel-drive drift through the corner. To my surprise, the rear completely stepped out, behaving much like a rear-driver. Hey bozo automotive journalist, that’s because it is rear-drive! You can order the SS in awd as well, but we prefer the lighter (at 4645 lb.) 2-wheel drive, the only vehicle in this test equipped as such.

    The SS package adds to the TrailBlazer a 6.0-liter Corvette-based LS2 small-block V-8, with 395 bhp and 400 lb.-ft. of torque, emitting an intoxicating sound from its single-outlet exhaust. The SS-specific ZQ8 sport suspension stiffens things up, riding on 20-in. polished aluminum wheels with 255/50R-20 Goodyear Eagle RS-As at all four corners. Larger brakes than the regular TrailBlazer, with Corvette-spec front pads, highlight the go-faster items.

    While reasonably quick in a straight line (when did 5.8 sec. to 60 mph become only reasonable?), we were let down by the SS in most other dynamic categories, such as a suspension that’s too soft for serious back-road flogging; it’s definitely not up to “supersport” levels, more like “semi-sport.” Marc wasn’t a big fan of the overboosted steering, either, saying, “It felt great on freeways, but was too light and vague in the twisties.” Shaun, who is nicknamed “Drift King” for his Rhys Millen impersonations at our test track, was quite vocal against the SS: “Being the only rear-wheel-drive vehicle in the bunch, I thought the SS would be more fun to toss around,” he said. “But the open differential just spins the inside rear tire on tight turns and it’s extremely difficult to induce anything other than heavy understeer.”

    Also on our “What’s up with GM?” rant list was the TrailBlazer’s 4-speed automatic, which we believe makes it the last vehicle on earth equipped with such an antiquated device. This might not have been as big of a problem if it were fitted with a manual mode, which, unfortunately, it’s not.

    While none of us loved the TrailBlazer SS, and found certain aspects of it frustratingly trucklike, it has merits nonetheless. “In three days of driving, I kinda got to like the SS,” Joe said. “It’s fun, and a real attention-getter among the older hot-rod set who just love the small-block Chevy V-8.”

    While it gets manhandled by the Jeep SRT8 in just about every performance category, we wonder if the “average Joe” might actually find the Chevy — with its smoother ride and less in-your-face attitude — easier to live with on a daily basis.

    Price as tested $31,505
    Curb weight 4645 lb
    Engine, transmission 6.0 liter V-8; 4-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 395 @ 6000
    0–60 mph 5.8 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.3 sec @ 97.6 mph
    Top speed 130 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 125 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 222 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.81g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 60.9 mph
    Our mileage 14.8mpg
    Towing capacity 6800lb


    BMW X5 4.8is

    [​IMG]

    Better than a BMW 325xi through the slalom
    Better than a BMW 330i to the quarter mile
    Will the soon-to-arrive all-new X5 be better, or just bigger?


    Since it was still three months from the time of writing before we could get our hands on the larger, 7-seat, second-generation X5 (to hit the U.S. market in November), we decided to include the “old” X5 because we’ve never previously run performance numbers on the 4.8is version and because we know that the new X5 will have a similar output to the vehicle tested here.

    The X5 4.8is, like the Jeep GC SRT8 and Infiniti FX45, is intended solely for on-road duties, and it wouldn’t be out of place on a racetrack, what with 275/40R-20 front tires and 315/35R-20 rears. The 4.8is adds 14.0-in. front rotors (compared with 13.1 for the 4.4i) and stiffer suspension settings. Its xDrive all-wheel drive is meant for enhancing traction on the road (especially wet ones) and is helpful when trying to put down the power from the 355-bhp 4.8-liter V-8, mated to one of our favorite 6-speed automatics — BMW’s Steptronic. Manual downshifts are performed by pushing the center console lever forward, upshifts by pulling rearward — which seems most natural to us, like a race car’s sequential setup.

    The throbbing V-8 is at all times smooth and soulful, especially so under full throttle, yet it’s never obnoxious in volume. This X5 is simply a smooth, comfortable, no-fuss-no-muss vehicle to drive, BMW no doubt feeling antics such as the power-on oversteer of the Jeep and corner-entry oversteer of the FX45 to be beneath its status level. Instead, the front gives way first in a nice, safe manner, though a bit sooner than expected, what with those huge tires. This was borne out by its test-worst skidpad of 0.78g. Yet its precise, communicative steering and reasonable size make it a user-friendly device, shown by its test-best slalom speed of 63.7 mph. It’s easy to drive quickly on back roads —and without a great penalty in ride comfort — due to excellent feedback to the driver as to what the chassis is up to.

    The interior is simple and feels a bit dated, no doubt to be fixed with the new X5, but it is a comfortable place to spend time and exudes a sense of quality. Shaun felt interior space was lacking: “Like the Infiniti and the Jeep, the 4.8is just isn’t all that practical when it comes to passenger room.”

    Still, we found lots to like about the BMW, and we never thought about its age while driving it. “It has great steering, superb brakes and good styling,” said Shaun. “And the best-looking wheel/tire combination of the group,” he added. Not bad for an “old timer.”

    With Mercedes and Porsche stepping up with super-mean versions of their SUVs, it seems time for BMW to finally affix the “M” badge to an X5 as well, something the current X5 has never worn. Look for an M X5 in a year or so.

    Price as tested $73,125
    Curb weight 5090lb
    Engine, transmission 4.8 liter V-8; 6-sp automatic
    Horsepower, bhp @ rpm 355 @ 6200
    0–60 mph 6.1 sec
    0–1320 ft (1/4 mile) 14.5 sec @ 95.6 mph
    Top speed 153 mph
    Braking, 60–0 mph 134 ft
    Braking, 80–0 mph 227 ft
    Lateral accel (200-ft skidpad) 0.78g
    Speed thru 700-ft slalom 63.7 mph
    Our mileage 14.9mpg
    Towing capacity 6000lb


    [​IMG]
     
  2. one.nine

    one.nine OT Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2002
    Messages:
    19,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never thought I'd say this, but I like the Jeep's body more than the Porsche
     
  3. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,388
    Likes Received:
    172
    Grand Cherokee SRT-8 looks the best, is the fastest, and is one of the cheapest. Hard not to like it.
     
  4. FarBeyondDriven

    FarBeyondDriven OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    45,428
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Kailua, HI
    :werd:
     
  5. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,798
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    I'll take this one.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Jhegro

    Jhegro wtf is a jhegro?

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,538
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago
    i'll take the one that will break the least.

    which would probbaly end up being the infiniti
     
  7. 1.8

    1.8 Guest

    A lot of them are quick but the skidpad results aren't anything to write home about for any performance vehicle.
     
  8. HisXLNC

    HisXLNC ๑۩۞۩๑ Hot ๑۩۞۩๑

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Messages:
    137,235
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Island of Electronicus
    FX for FTW.
     
  9. wangatang

    wangatang backing it in your mom

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2001
    Messages:
    38,914
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    erf
    gc srt8 ftmfw


    enough acronyms for ya :o
     
  10. brackac

    brackac Fuck all of this. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Messages:
    105,388
    Likes Received:
    172
  11. Antigeek

    Antigeek Who Dat!

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Abita Springs, LA
    I want that Jeep. Bad.
     
  12. diaper eater

    diaper eater OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    17,211
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    mpls, minnesota
    jeep ftw :o first and only time ill say it.


    oh and comparing the porsche to the 350z :rofl: even the forester xt is faster
     
  13. LSD

    LSD knowledge is good OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2001
    Messages:
    6,538
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    SoCal
    wtf are they talking about, the trailblazer ss comes standard with a LSD
     
  14. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,798
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    It might allow wheelspin before engaging? :dunno:
     
  15. KDubb

    KDubb everyday I'm hustlin'

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2000
    Messages:
    92,285
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere
    I love the Cayenne
     
  16. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,798
    Likes Received:
    1,699
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    Day Crew
     
  17. Urinal Mint

    Urinal Mint bourbon afficionado

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2001
    Messages:
    113,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Houston
    Where's a similar sub-$40,000 feature? :o
     
  18. Justin

    Justin Guest

    Rofl @ comparing the Chevy to all those.
     
  19. dbman96

    dbman96 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2000
    Messages:
    49,996
    Likes Received:
    6

    On the RWD models? Maybe they just got a preproduction version or something, but that sounds stupid when GM knows exactly what they're up against in the article.
     
  20. dbman96

    dbman96 Active Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2000
    Messages:
    49,996
    Likes Received:
    6
    The SRT8 is a fucking monster. I want one.
     
  21. sweetcheeks

    sweetcheeks Patron Saint of Quality Footwear

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    4,779
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vancouver
    That Jeep is hot. :cool:
     
  22. Sonic

    Sonic Live every day to the fullest, for yesterday is go

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    48,083
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Westchester County,New York
    God I love the SRT's engine.

    And everything else about it.:yum:
     
  23. Vineyard311

    Vineyard311 Wanna Race?

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    2,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Chevy was out of its league in this test, did they not know it was $15k cheaper than the Cherokee? $30k SUV shouldnt be compared to a $95k SUV
     
  24. CJPA

    CJPA New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    114,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    SUVs :greddy:

    Although that dude w/ the blown TBSS on here has a pretty sweet ride :cool:
     
  25. zanadu

    zanadu OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2006
    Messages:
    9,629
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    lol @ 11 mpg on the Jeep
     

Share This Page