>
>
> >
> > Weird. I would have expected better times out of the R/T!
> Especially
> > for the short bed. Mid 14's or at least 15 would be nice. My '96 Club
> Cab
> > SLT with the added weight of a trailer hitch and bed rails posted a
> 16.0@85mph
> > with 90+% humidity. (V8, standard tranny) (I have no idea what my 0-60
> time
> > is)
> >
> >
> > -Jon-
>
> I agree!
> Motor Trend January 98 did a test on the Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited.
> Both the Cherokee 5.9 & the R/T 5.9 use the 46RE /4 speed auto trans.
> The Cherokee weighed in at 4218 lbs. 300lbs more that the Dakota R/T but
> posted better times! The R/T article said the 1/4 mile runs were done
> "using a street (low RPM) launch and letting the automatics shift
> at their predetermined points". Braking was another area the Cherokee
> did
> better than the R/T. The Cherokee has 4 wheel disc brakes. Why doesn't the
> R/T?
> The R/T also used Premium fuel which indicated the upgraded computer. Here
>
> is the data from both articles.
>
> Cherokee 5.9 R/T 5.9
> (Motor Trend Jan Article) (Sport Truck Feb
> Article)
>
> Weight 4218 Lbs. 3900 Lbs.
> Horsepower 245 @ 4000 250 @ 4400
> Torque 345 @ 3200 345 @ 3200
> Braking 60-0 126 Ft 147 Ft
> Acceleration 0-60 6.8 8.22
> 1/4 Mile 15.2 @ 88.7 16.17 @ 83.15
>
> What's wrong with this picture?? The Cherokee family truck just blew away
> The R/T in all categories! Somebody call Chrysler! Granted the R/T is a
> pre production truck but lets hope the production R/T at the very least
> has the performance of the Cherokee!
>
> Catlin
> (Still going to buy the R/T )
>
Sounds like maybe the test drivers at Sport Truck were afraid to push it
to hard, a lot of times a driver can be the biggest factor in a vehicles
performance, that's the only way to explain it since they both have the
same engine and tranny in them, and the R/T weighs less. I don't see any
reason why the R/T shouldn't be posting the same or better numbers that
the Jeep.....
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:02 EDT