re: Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk confirmed :JIMP:

quote:

---

Why would a sports car appeal to anyone? They're impractical, usually uncomfortable, etc.

---

That's a different question.

quote:

---

do you assume anyone who drives an SUV is fat? because it isn't a car, its a full sized suv that seats 7

---

I know that the majority of them are, so, sure.

quote:

---

I would just assume anyone who drives this is morbidly obese. It looks like a fat people car.

---

Stupid comment is stupid.

quote:

---

ballscaster

---

Oh, that explains it.

I'm pissing off fat people.

What about a hellcat in the ram.

My uncle had one like this man talk about a fast truck.

quote:

---

I didn't say it was only for soccer moms

---

Then why can this SUV and the Porsche Cayenne not have 700hp?

quote:

---

If your wife convinced you to trade in your truck for a minivan, sorry not sorry.

---

Thanks for the out of left field comment.

I interned at Chrysler and when I was there it was only available in the 3/4 trucks.

quote:

---

Then why can this SUV and the Porsche Cayenne not have 700hp?

---

They have it because people are willing to pay it. My opinion, which you seem to disagree with, is that a family vehicle is both impractical and unsafe with that kind of power.

If your goal is to transport kids, there are more than enough luxury brand and powerful SUVs.

If your goal is to drive fast under 100K, grab a Z06 or GT-R.

Forgive me, but I don't see the lure in "Let me drop my kids off first then I'll swing by the track."

That's just my .02

quote:

---

Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk confirmed :JIMP:

---

I like the power train, but that's it.

Why not get a sports sedan like a CTS-V, Mercedes AMG, or BMW M? They are faster, handle much better, offer a lower center of gravity, and are more purpose built to engage the driver while still offering room for up to 5.

Cars like the Grand Cherokee, Tahoe, Suburban, and Range Rover make more sense as a "jack of all trades" type of vehicle, because that's their intended purpose from the start. They can handle anything a normal family can throw at it, tow their boats/horse trailers/Airstream, won't break anything in moderate off road situations or in heavy snow, and are as safe as a bank-vault on wheels. That's a big part of why people like them.

A lowered version of these heavy, tall vehicles without much of the basis of their originally intended appeal and design features just doesn't make sense to me conceptually.

There's nothing you can do to a Grand Cherokee, Suburban, or Expedition to make it as fun on the track as a CTS-V or M5. A higher end version of these SUVs should offer more engine output...but play more to their strengths, like off roading, hauling stuff, or towing.

quote:

---

My brother paid 70k for his SRT Cherokee. It's nice, but not 70k nice

---

Why did he get the SRT instead of the Overland or Summit? It would have been damn near $20k less had he done that.