You are here: Forums SUVs Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 vs Chevy TrailBlazer SS vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo

Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 vs Chevy TrailBlazer SS vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo

165 messages,  Last post on Mar 31, 2007 at 9:32 PM

You are in the Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8, Chevrolet TrailBlazer, Porsche Cayenne, SUV

Messages Page 16 of 18 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#142 of 165 More specs by rich545 Jun 09, 2006 (8:36 am)
Just found on Edmunds that the Cayenne Turbo they tested in 2004 braked 60-0 in 116 feet. I would imagine that the new Turbo S would be able to beat that or at least match it. This is an interesting read too:   http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109458/pageNumber=1?s- ynpartner=edmunds&pageurl=www.edmunds.com/new/2006/porsche/cayenne/100684771/roa- dtestarticle.html&articleId=109458 Replies to this message: rich545 (Jun 09, 2006 9:04 am) 06blksrt8 (Jun 09, 2006 9:40 am)
#143 of 165 Re: More specs [rich545] by rich545 Jun 09, 2006 (9:04 am)
Replying to: rich545 (Jun 09, 2006 8:36 am) Actually, in Motor Trends test they stopped 60-0 in 112 ft. in the straight Turbo. Also I doubt your 1/4 mile stat is right. The Turbo did it in 13.79 seconds, and given the hp difference with the Turbo S I doubt it would only be .3 or .5 seconds faster. Can't find the stat anywhere though. Where did you get 13.2 or 13.4? Car and Driver had 13.5 for the Turbo (not Turbo S) BTW. One correction: the Turbo S get 13-18 mpg not 16-18. Replies to this message: 06blksrt8 (Jun 09, 2006 9:40 am)
#144 of 165 Re: More specs [rich545] by 06blksrt8 Jun 09, 2006 (9:40 am)
Replying to: rich545 (Jun 09, 2006 9:04 am) I read someone did it in 13.27, another I saw 13.31. Both cars are tops in their class, but I'd say it's hard to compare the two. Both are beautifully engineered cars. Why can't everyone just get along?!?
#145 of 165 Richie... by blkhemi Jun 09, 2006 (4:36 pm)
I know that you're trying to discount me, but the truth of the matter is that the Porsche is just another attack on American iron and it fails, yet again(much in the way the 911 does with Vette.)   Most of the stats I got on the Porsche came from their own website and several European mags, you know the unbiased ones.   Both of these vehicles have hugely conservatively rated numbers, but judging from a person who actually owns one(do you own a Turbo S, or any Cayenne for that matter?), I know the Jeep has the upper hand on most numbers. Call it as you may, the Turbo S is a very nice piece of machinery. And speaking of JDP, isn't the Cayenne the model that dragged Porsche down last year? And remember, this was an IQS study, lets see what happens when those diffs pop loose as they're doing VW Touaregs as of know.   Did you mention noise? I'm sorry that I enjoy the hearing the roar of my engine and note the gear whine the S puts out(oh that's excuseable because it's an off-roader). You know some people like that(ie: most American gearheads.)   And I maintain my point. The interior is unbecoming of a $112k car. My Audi A8 W-12 may have some leather hides left over so that you can cover those plastic armrest/door covers. (And they've bought into the VW/Audi family, wonder if they'll ask for help on the interiors?) Yes Porsche is the most profitable because they're still classified as a "speciallty" maker, not full-line. Yes the Porsche is great off-road, but will it pass a lesser(only $35k) JGC Quadra-Drive II-equipped? NAH. Remember, Jeep is still the only maker to still allow only one wheel to spin for 100% of power if all others are uncapable. Maybe the Turbo S is better in Dubai in the sand dunes, WHOOPS!! Didn't the Turbo S get stuck there in the sand?   Currently, what is Porsche's day-in/day-out availablity on the Cayenne line? 8 days. SRT? - I'll let you guess it.   I don't have to prove to anyone that the Jeep is tops. The Cayenne is what it is, a bloated, cramped, heavy,(IMO, not the best looker around), but very fast and very $$$ vehicle.   BTW: with my Brembo brake upgrade, my SRT stops in 105ft., better than say, a 911(S,4S,Turbo,GT3)/Cayman/Boxster(S), oh yeah, Cayenne(all models). And I didn't "discount" the top-speeds, but really, a 5500 pound SUV going 168 mph safely, comfortably. Highly doubtful. DCX was smart at giving the SRT a 155 mph limiter, but believe me, It will go much further. The only demerit I can see with my SRT is that it's in need of a 6th gear, but other than that, it's still tops. Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 09, 2006 8:06 pm) blkhemi (Jun 10, 2006 9:21 am) rich545 (Jun 11, 2006 7:59 am)
#146 of 165 Re: Richie... [blkhemi] by steve_ HOST Jun 09, 2006 (8:06 pm)
Replying to: blkhemi (Jun 09, 2006 4:36 pm) I wonder how either would stack up against the Ariel Atom (ok, fewer amenities but still).   Hilarious video for your weekend:   dugg's CarSpace (go to the bottom of the page)   Steve, Host Replies to this message: blkhemi (Jun 10, 2006 9:21 am)
#147 of 165 Re: Richie... [steve_] by blkhemi Jun 10, 2006 (9:21 am)
Replying to: steve_ (Jun 09, 2006 8:06 pm) Very interesting little toy. 0-60 im 2.9 secs? That's fast. something that neither the SRT nor the Turbo S could do.... As a matter of fact, I think the Bugatti Veyron(1.2mil) had better watch out for this little monster because it ties its 2.9 time.
#148 of 165 Re: Richie... [blkhemi] by rich545 Jun 11, 2006 (7:59 am)
Replying to: blkhemi (Jun 09, 2006 4:36 pm) I'm not trying to discount you. You do that just fine yourself without any help by not responding to specific points I raised, but instead making personal attacks. When you're ready to debate this in a more reasonable manner let me know. Until then it's not worth it.
#149 of 165 A couple of problems with rich545's post #141 by 2002svtf150 Jun 11, 2006 (9:37 am)
See post #150 below for the message. I'm not sure why the double post happened and am unable to delete it for some reason.
#150 of 165 A couple of problems with rich545's post #141 by 2002svtf150 Jun 11, 2006 (10:09 am)
My opinion:   (1) Rich stated "I find it ridiculous we feel need to name engines here"   The 6.1 isn't named "Hemi", it is a hemi, it's also referred to as a V8, does that offend you as well?. Do you find it ridiculous that Porsche refers to the engine in the Cay TT as a "Turbo"? I bet not since it is a turbo.     (2) Rich stated "Frankly the Hemi is a dinosaur compared to Porsche's engines."   The 6.1 HEMI uses the latest technological advances coupled with proven mechanical simplicity to accomplish performance comparable to the best Europe or Asia has to offer. Yes, it's displacement is greater than Porsches fabulous 4.5 TT, but it requires far less mechanical complexity & expense to achieve the same results. To refer to the 6.1 as a dinosaur is "EuroSnobbery". DCX has chosen a different mechanical direction for the 6.1 but is no less technologically advanced.   PS: I'm a Poschephile myself, currently owning two, a Boxster & a 911 and feel they possess possibly the finest automotive engineering division on the planet. I do however feel they dropped the ball with the Cayenne. To get back in the game Porsche needs to develop an On-Road Cay TT that discards the "pork" added to the Cayenne platform necessary for off-roading that 99.9% of Cayenne's will never be exposed to. If they did this it would: (A) drop 4-500 lb's, (B) still be goofy looking, (C) reduce the price a few $K, and (D) perform as many of the Porsche faithful hoped it would to begin with. Replies to this message: rich545 (Jun 11, 2006 10:45 am) steve_ (Jun 11, 2006 12:56 pm) blkhemi (Jun 11, 2006 4:47 pm)
#151 of 165 Re: A couple of problems with rich545's post #141 [2002svtf150] by rich545 Jun 11, 2006 (10:45 am)
Replying to: 2002svtf150 (Jun 11, 2006 10:09 am) Doesn't HEMI stand for hemispherical head? There is definitely some feeling out there that this engine design is somewhat dated. I'm not offended by it at all, but the marketing for the engine is annoying without a doubt. A far as producing an on-road only Cay TT where's the challenge in that? It doesn't take much in the way of impressive engineering to produce a fast, single purpose on-road truck. Porsche wanted to design an SUV with great on AND off-road capabilities. Will Cayenne owners off-road with it much? Nope, but most people that own cars that go 160 mph won't go that fast either. The Porsche faithful were just mad that Porsche built an SUV at all. It had NOTHING to do with performance. With regards to how it looks, I'd be willing to bet that if you parked a Cayenne and Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 next to each other and asked 10 people that owned neither which was more attractive, at least 8 would pick the Cayenne. I know that everytime I get my Cayenne washed people comment on what a great looking truck it is. Most think it looks like a a big 911. Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 11, 2006 12:56 pm) blkhemi (Jun 11, 2006 4:47 pm)

Messages Page 16 of 18 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums SUVs Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Grand Cherokee Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT-8 vs Chevy TrailBlazer SS vs Porsche Cayenne Turbo