Don't know if you saw the Jan issue of Car and Driver. They tested the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, the BMW X5M, LandRover Sport and the Porsche Cayenne Turbo S. All large mammoths weighting in at least 4768 pounds and all faster than 5.2 sec 0 - 60! The current 2010 GT does it in around 5.2 secs.

The Jeep has a 420 hp engine and weighs in at 4768 pounds and did 0 - 60 in 4.4 secs! Since the new 2011 GT 5.0l suppose to have at least 400hp, if the new Mustang GT 5.0l doesn't do better than a Jeep 0 - 60, Ford will have a serious problem! And if you read Car/Drive/ Road/Track and others you see alot of cars beating the Mustang 0 -60 with engines in the 400 hp range.

So now if you come up to a light with a Jeep SRT8, don't bother. He'll blow your doors off! 8-(

Joe

 

I hear the Mustang is also slower than an F-22! OMG RELEVANT COMPARISON!

 

The Jeep has AWD and launches like a bat out of hell. That's why the 0-60 is so good given the weight. That's also why the new 911 Turbo has a high 2 second 0-60 with 500HP. Mustangs are difficult to launch and get a good 0 - 60 unless prepped for track use.

 

Who cares.

 

MSRP for a Grand Cherokee SRT8?

...for a Mustang GT?

 

Vehicle class? Intended market? Competition?

 

What is the Jeep 0-100mph? I bet it is less than the Mustang.

 

If you can buy more than 1 entire Mustang for the price of the car you're comparing it to... then I'd be safe and say the answer is 42. It's always 42.

 

SRTs are the SVT of Dodge/Chrysler

If it WERE faster, would you REALLY be surprised.

 

And SRT is in the process of being taken apart. The last models are working their way out, and I think the last one will be 2012. After that, no more SRT. They had some good ideas, but couldn't execute them without creating problems - brake issues, half shafts (don't go there on the IRS..), cradles that cause alignment problems - the list goes on...

 

Interesting.

Wonder if they'll just become regular models then and just badged the same (or different)

 

This.

 

I think that says as much or more about the Jeep SRT-8 and its AWD than anything specifically bad about the Stang, even if, ideally, the Stang would whoop anything on 4 wheels or two.

That said, little pride would be salvaged when your bud in the SRT-8 actually does whoop you (at least up to a 100 or so) no matter how much you wave around your window sticker. However, we're talking 315 hp, pre-'2011 Stang here and I'm confident that the 5.0 will set everything right in the world, at least until Jeep comes out with some even bigger Hemi, that is.

 

News is the 6.4 is still on track for 2012 MY, but by 2014 SRT will be done. The 6.XL will be no more. Fiat is not in the market of making big gas guzzlers.

It's a shame becase there was a monster motor coming down the pike that was cancelled. It's sole purpose was to hand the GT500 it's rear end (no pun intended). The only comment I could get on power level was "rediculous." That's huge coming from those making 475 N/A...

 

Does it seat 7? I could use a 7 seat rocketship for the family. The Expedition is such a boat.

That Jeep sounds freakin' awesome!

 

As long as they do something about axlehop, its bad enough with 300hp and down right terrible with 500hp (cold GY F1's only exasperate the problem).

I dont know if its the defintion of irony, but the current Camaro is the better drag car with its IRS and Mustang due to its lighter weight is the better car handling with its SRA

In anyevent I think shortly I will be dropping some coin on this to cure the axle hop problem

 

Thats the problem. The Camaro puts the power to the ground better than the Mustang and may still spank it even if the GT gets 425 because of this. You look at blown GT's with about the same hp as the SS and the SS is still coming out on top because of the traction problems. So 425 may not be the answer but just bragging rights unless the traction issues are ironed out.

 

Needs tires too. Ford needs to make an option for a 335 rear tire on a GT. Larger on a GT500. People will ***** about the cost of such tires, so make it an option.

 

I guess that belies the old saw that IRS is necessarily bad for the strip -- as if that notion hasn't been disproved already by upteen million Vettes, Vipers and the like bombing down the strip just fine -- and the huge advantage of light weight for ALL aspects of performance, even overcoming the constraints and limits of a neolithic rear suspension design.

 

GM has done a really good job tuning the IRS for acceleration duty, so far its only penalty has been weight (although its superior in the unsprung weight catagory) and complexity.

Now I'm wondering if Ford ever considered using a torque arm rear suspension? My old roommate had an IROC and there wasn't an issue with wheel hop, nor did I have a problem with an old hotrod V8 Starfire ( essentially a Monza - both used the precursor to the 3rd/4th gen F-body rear suspension).

Perhaps the torque arm rear is ultimately inferior to the S-197's current 3 link arrangement in terms of allowing the rear end to articulate? I just wish I knew because the torque arm rear on the 4th gen did a really good job as well.

In any event, I'm somewhat envious of what GM has done with its rear suspension, its a case of definetly having your cake in terms of acceleration, ride comfort and handling, but I really am enamared to the overall simplicity of the S-197's chassis and its ease of maintence. Ultimately if a few bolts on cure the problem I can't complain to much.