I'd be interrested to compare the numbers from other trucks in the Sport Truck
article, to the other trucks other numbers. I wonder if their drivers were
consistently slower than max, if they were told not to push it too much.
Bruce Aaron Hefner wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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