Have you dragged both, and got time slips for each?
That would go a long way to prove your last statement: "for sheer speed the
R/T is better."
The Adam Blaster
>
>Lets compare apples to apples. I have a 99 R/T RC weighing 4200 and a 2001
>Grand Cherokee limited 4.7V8 weighing 4000, both automatics because that is
>the
>only way you can get it and limited slip rear ends. The GC is very
>responsive
>but the R/T can beat it 2 lengths to 60 and 5 on the quarter mile. the GC
>is
>stock and the R/T has headers. Now I own them both and the GC is fun to
>drive
>and lots quieter and more comfortable but for sheer speed the R/T is
>better.
>Both are 4X2 models also. At 60 mph on cruise with a/c on the R/T gets 18
>mpg
>and the GC gets 21. Now there is a difference.
>
>Jim in Waco.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:02:10 EDT