2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philly
  • 92 comments
  • 8,803 views
Well... compared to other Dodge models, it is a luxury vehicle. If you're buying an $80,000 car, you want an $80,000 interior. The ACR is your balls-out sports car.

Not with the suspension it has. A softer sprung Sebring with it's terrible interior is probably more luxurious than a Viper that will take your teeth out, leather seats or not.

But I agree, Chrysler should concentrate on their interiors in the GC, Sebring and 300 before anything else (except maybe the Ram).
 
Actually the Town and Country interior isn't that bad for a Chrysler. The newer ones are actually ok. The new Ram may have a nice looking interior (I guess) the feel isn't 100% good yet. More like 85%. I hope the new Cherokee at least has a better quality feeling interior.
 
JCE
The new Ram may have a nice looking interior (I guess) the feel isn't 100% good yet. More like 85%.
I have to disagree. The only other truck on the market that has as nice of a feeling interior as the Dodge is the F-150.
 
Well I'm obviously biased but the F150 has the best full-size interior. I like the Ram's more than Toyota's and GM's myself.
 
You know me, I love the F150's interior feel and look. The center consoles in the higher trims are sweet. :D
 
can someone clear me up on that please, but on the pics in the first post, it doesnt seem that the rear lights are LED's.

If they are not, i mean come on, its 2011 and still using bulbs?

Thanks

Chris
 
If they are not, i mean come on, its 2011 and still using bulbs?

LED headlights, taillights, whatever have no real purpose other than looking pretty.

A single bulb vs 20-50 LEDs that each cost around half of that one bulb... Hmm.

Nah, nah, I'll keep traditional bulbs thanks.
 
LED headlights, taillights, whatever have no real purpose other than looking pretty.

A single bulb vs 20-50 LEDs that each cost around half of that one bulb... Hmm.

Nah, nah, I'll keep traditional bulbs thanks.

LED taillamps don't burn out as easily and they are brighter which is why they are used. There is also a crisper on/off cycle than with traditional bulbs. I can see why LED headlamps aren't popular yet since they don't offer the same range as xenon HID's, but LED taillamps make sense.
 
They're still more expensive to replace than bulbs, more expensive to manufacture, etc.

And the last thing Chrysler needs right now is pointless spending on every vehicle they make that doesn't involve quality control on the interior.
 
Come on, my 18 yearold Camaro has LED lights. It just makes sense! You can order LED bulbs for as little as $3-4 on a couple of internet sites like I did with my bulbs. I'll be converting my Van over soon too. :D
 
They're still more expensive to replace than bulbs, more expensive to manufacture, etc.

And the last thing Chrysler needs right now is pointless spending on every vehicle they make that doesn't involve quality control on the interior.

LED bulbs have a much longer life than a normal bulb so the odds of having to replace them during the life time of a car is slim. The cost of manufacturing has come way down as well and you can buy LED bulbs now for about the same as normal bulbs.

LED taillamps are safer and money well spent. I can see where LED headlamps however would be a waste of time and money because I highly doubt Chrysler would be able to get them right. I think Audi will be the first ones to really give LED headlamps a go.
 
LEDs have the problem of not being intense enough. If you look at tail lamp bulbs, they're nothing special, just ordinary incandescent bulbs. An LED could easily outshine this.

HOWEVER, Most headlamps are at LEAST Halogen, if not Xenon based. These noble gas-filled lights can by far outshine current LED technology. There's some that comes close, but require intense cooling often not present in automotive applications: If there's no heat sink, these can burn out in seconds.
 
Last edited:
TVC
The 2009 Wrangler is suppose to be the worst car of 2009.
That... makes no sense. Since when is the Wrangler a bad vehicle? It has been one of the few Chrysler products that has sold fairly well, and is actually a pretty good vehicle, especially off road.
 
Damn right, one of the few good factory off-roaders still available. It's funny because the Wrangler is the only vehicle where a poor fitting, hard to the touch, spartan interior is a good thing, and where a rough ride doesn't matter.
 
TVC
The 2009 Wrangler is suppose to be the worst car of 2009.
I'd rather have a Wrangler than the utterly awful Toyota equivalent.

On the LED debate: I really doubt Jeep owners care, and I'm guessing traditional Jeep owners (which, if the total failure of the Compass means anything, still make up a large percentage of sales) would rather not have LED anything.
 
I dunno...they make aftermarket LED taillight units for Wranglers, I'm certain...
 
They do, but they cost a couple hundred bucks. I do agree L.E.D. lights are brighter than standard bulbs, but at night they can get to be too bright.
 
Hello There, IR TEH SRT-8

thumb800x800_3436051655_e925f99ea8_o.jpg


Jalopnik has the story here

  • Will be a 2012 model
  • Will use the new 6.4L HEMI V8
  • Somewhere between 505-525 BHP
  • Still uses AWD

Nice? It seems like these things would be passe by now...
 
Hello There, IR TEH SRT-8

thumb800x800_3436051655_e925f99ea8_o.jpg


Jalopnik has the story here

  • Will be a 2012 model
  • Will use the new 6.4L HEMI V8
  • Somewhere between 505-525 BHP
  • Still uses AWD

Nice? It seems like these things would be passe by now...

Ooooohhhh I like that! And I like the realistic horsepower output. FINALLY Chrysler squeezes some power out of its HEMI V8. Granted it took 0.2 more litres but at least they have over 500bhp. I bet it will make one hell of a noise!
 
It's over Five-HUNDREEEEED! *crushes Scouter*

I dunno. Granted, it won't be "trail-rated," but when the performance target is stuff like the Range Rover Sport...
 
Jim I don't think the SRT-8 will be gunning after the Range Rover Sport, as the Sport already is down in horsepower to the Jeep. I'm guessing they will be gunning after that fast Infiniti SUV thing, but I don't know, I've sort of loss touch with the pseudo-SUV market.

I'm still baffled why Chrysler thinks that the only way to get more power from an engine is just to make it bigger. The SRT-8 now has a 6.1L putting out something like 420-430hp. Why on earth did they feel they needed to increase the displacement to get more power out of it? People in the aftermarket have tuned their 6.1L up quite a bit and I'm guessing they are getting more than 500hp out of them. It's this lack of ingenuity and engineering that make me dislike American vehicles.

Also I'm not exactly thrilled this is what my tax dollars are producing. I was kind of hoping Chrysler would drop their SRT line after the government backed a truck load of money up to them. Chrysler needs to make cars people can buy, not cars people think are cool.
 
I'm still baffled why Chrysler thinks that the only way to get more power from an engine is just to make it bigger. The SRT-8 now has a 6.1L putting out something like 420-430hp. Why on earth did they feel they needed to increase the displacement to get more power out of it? People in the aftermarket have tuned their 6.1L up quite a bit and I'm guessing they are getting more than 500hp out of them. It's this lack of ingenuity and engineering that make me dislike American vehicles.

I may be wrong, but I suspect there's a bit of an 'if it's not big, it aint good enough' attitude with a fair proportion of American buyers. The kind of people that see the Mini as a chick's car, probably. And so keeping the existing 6.1 (or god forbid, downsizing it) wouldn't be seen as a big enough 'improvement', presumably, even regardless of power output. I dunno, that's just a guess.
 
I may be wrong, but I suspect there's a bit of an 'if it's not big, it aint good enough' attitude with a fair proportion of American buyers. The kind of people that see the Mini as a chick's car, probably. And so keeping the existing 6.1 (or god forbid, downsizing it) wouldn't be seen as a big enough 'improvement', presumably, even regardless of power output. I dunno, that's just a guess.

I agree with that and suspect that it is true, which is also something I will never understand about this nation and it's citizens.
 
I'm still baffled why Chrysler thinks that the only way to get more power from an engine is just to make it bigger. The SRT-8 now has a 6.1L putting out something like 420-430hp.
Chrysler nearly has as much power out of the 5.7 as they do out of the 6.1, so I doubt its lack of ability. 100 horsepower from only a .3 bump in displacement isn't anything to scoff at, and 525 horespower from a 6.4L engine is hardly bad anyways.

It's this lack of ingenuity and engineering that make me dislike American vehicles.
I know you don't like American cars, but if you are going to claim that they lack ingenuity and engineering prowess, try to at least pick a valid reason. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't see too much wrong with bumping the displacement up a few notches. The people who are going to buy a super expensive, useless Jeep are the "there's no replacement for displacement" guys. They aren't really going to care much about the fuel economy of the thing, just noise and power.

And that is also something that helps separate the American cars from everybody else. If we all adopted turbo 6s and the like, then there wouldn't be as much separating us from the European cars, and since the Europeans (and Japanese) can build some pretty good cars these days, I'm sure the American muscle cars wouldn't do quite as well.

Also I'm not exactly thrilled this is what my tax dollars are producing. I was kind of hoping Chrysler would drop their SRT line after the government backed a truck load of money up to them. Chrysler needs to make cars people can buy, not cars people think are cool.

I agree about 85%. Throwing an SRT line together is going to cost them a bit, and they probably won't make much off of it. I very rarely see any SRT-8 Jeeps, and while I do think they're pretty cool, I do wonder why they bothered to build them if you never see them.

However, a good performance line is a great advertisement. The reason I've liked GM so much is mostly due to me having grown up loving every Corvette ever made. It was consistently the coolest American car, and it was still cool when nobody else made cool cars. And because of that, General Motors was a cool company in my book. And so then I would probably look more favorably on their products when it comes to buying a car.

And similarly with the Mustang. The 2010 is a sweet looking vehicle, and combined with a decent seeming lineup, Ford rises a few notches in my book. And I'm utterly disappointed with the Camaro, so GM suddenly doesn't seem so cool
 
Also I'm not exactly thrilled this is what my tax dollars are producing. I was kind of hoping Chrysler would drop their SRT line after the government backed a truck load of money up to them. Chrysler needs to make cars people can buy, not cars people think are cool.

You know, if they were smarter, they'd base the SRT models off the base models, in order to make a cheap car that's also quick and has great handling.
 
Back