Will General Motors declare bankruptcy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zardoz
  • 871 comments
  • 26,018 views
According to the newest issue of Car and Driver:

Jeep Cherokee SRT-8: 6.1L HEMI V8 @ 420HP, 420lb-ft
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 12.0
1/4 mile: 13.2@104
Top Speed:155
Breaks 70-0: 178ft
skidpad: .88g
lane change: 61.3
towing capacity: 3500lbs
EPA (city/highway): 12/15

Chevrolet Trailblazer SS: 6.0L LS2 V8 @ 395hp, 400lb-ft
0-60: 5.5
0-100: 14.6
1/4 mile: 14.1@98
Top Speed:130 (gov. limited)
Breaks 70-0: 180ft
skidpad: .81g
lane change: 61.9
towing capacity: 6700lbs
EPA (city/highway): 14/17

GMC Typhoon (1992): 4.3L Twin-Turbo V6 @ 285HP, 350lb-ft
0-60: 5.3 seconds (faster than the Ferrari 348ts, ha ha!)
Towing Capacity: 600lbs

So that officially makes the Cherokee SRT-8 the fastest PRODUCTION SUV available on the market AT THE MOMENT... Although I dont doubt the possibilities of the Porsche Cayanne Turbo S, I still think the 6000+lb curb weight is going to hamper it just a bit... But, it can outrun the previous-generation Boxster S at the 'Ring, so who knows?
 
The Typhoon is a S-15 Jimmy with a turbo slapped on it. Picture my truck turboed. It was indeed an SUV and it could tow (while it wasn't rated...neither is my truck but I still tow with it). It was just one of those things that seemed so crazy that it might work, sure they didn't sell well, but I, along with others, still classify them as the Skylines of the truck world.
 
YSSMAN
According to the newest issue of Car and Driver:

Jeep Cherokee SRT-8: 6.1L HEMI V8 @ 420HP, 420lb-ft
0-60: 4.5


Chevrolet Trailblazer SS: 6.0L LS2 V8 @ 395hp, 400lb-ft
0-60: 5.5


GMC Typhoon (1992): 4.3L Twin-Turbo V6 @ 285HP, 350lb-ft
0-60: 5.3 seconds (faster than the Ferrari 348ts, ha ha!)
?
Click to expand...

alas these times are clearly inflated based on the source. i stand by my more apt times. regardless, the grand cherokee srt-8 is a lot quicker than any suv it can be compared to.

Poverty
Typhoon is not a suv. It couldnt even tow 2 motorbikes.
Click to expand...

it's not an suv because it can't tow? are you kidding?
 
...How can these times be inflated when they are measured with GPS-based tools that have been widely accepted as the best way to measure most performance tests now that the old "wheel attached to the door" trick doesnt work anymore?

Plus, its not like they can drive these any other way than any other magazine. With the lack of a manual transmission, C/D has to do the same thing as Motor Trend, Road and Track, Automobile, etc. where they hit the gas with their left foot and keep it there untill they get through the quarter mile...

The only thing that could ever "inflate" these ratings is the differences in testing conditions, but as C/D has said a gizillion times before, when they know it will make a difference they will correct for them.

...I seem to recall this issue comming up before...
 
alas these times are clearly inflated based on the source. i stand by my more apt times. regardless, the grand cherokee srt-8 is a lot quicker than any suv it can be compared to.
Click to expand...

AHAHAHHA so im not the only one.

I have been saying that about C/D for some time now.

The only thing that could ever "inflate" these ratings is the differences in testing conditions
Click to expand...

So either C/D are always inflating these ratings up to optimium conditions or they always manage to get better conditions that avery european mag and the manufacturers themselves.

And dont say manufacturers make their supercars performance figures conservative due to insurance reasons as thats BS. As if insurance would matter for a person that could afford a supercar ofr taht insurance companies give a toss about the differnece of .3 of a second.
 
Poverty
So either C/D are always inflating these ratings up to optimium conditions or they always manage to get better conditions that avery european mag and the manufacturers themselves.

And dont say manufacturers make their supercars performance figures conservative due to insurance reasons as thats BS. As if insurance would matter for a person that could afford a supercar ofr taht insurance companies give a toss about the differnece of .3 of a second.
Click to expand...
C/D uses a standard SAE correction factor, so the conditions should not matter.

They have a good driver, they brake-torque on launch (for autos), and don't lift when they shift (for manuals). Most manufacturers probably don't do either of these when they get their published figures.

But any half-decent driver can do either/both of these. It is never OK to compare times of two different drivers, but C/D's times should be fine when compared against other C/D times. Consistency is what counts.

And this topic has been beaten to death before, lets not hash it out again.
 
skip0110
They have a good driver, they brake-torque on launch (for autos), and don't lift when they shift (for manuals). Most manufacturers probably don't do either of these when they get their published figures.

But any half-decent driver can do either/both of these. It is never OK to compare times of two different drivers, but C/D's times should be fine when compared against other C/D times. Consistency is what counts.
Click to expand...

They actually do not speed shift when using a manual transmission, and they have talked about that many times. They will usually line the car up at the strip and do a few runs to find how well the car launches at a particular RPM and what kind of throttle they should give it, and after the data has been collected, they use their best times... Guess what, every American automotive magazine does this... Hell, even Motor Trend will brag about it... When they first tested the Evolution VIII here in the US they talked about doing the 5500RPM clutch dumps to get the car to hurry to 60 in less than 5 seconds...

C/D takes great pride in their expirience in driving, testing, and racing automobiles and it shows in their testing. They are generally (and consistantly) the faster of the "Big Three" magazines (C/D, Motor Trend, Road and Track) when testing vehicles...

But to say that their claims are overrated is BS, there really isnt too much of a way to make an automatic-equipped car faster other than different weather conditions, and maybe getting the tires warmed up by laying a few 20ft patches before testing...

Jeep had claimed in the past that the Cherokee SRT-8 would do "0-60 in less than 5 seconds," and I believe they ended up putting it at 4.8 seconds. After the magazines have gotten their hands on the truck, they have been able to get it lower... Why? AUTOMAKERS ALWAYS, I REPEAT, ALWAYS BOTCH THEIR CAR'S PERFORMANCE FIGURES... I can maybe think of one car in recent memory that did not live up to the factory performance figures, and it was the origional LS6-powered Cadillac CTS-V... GM rated the car at 4.6 0-60, the best I had ever read was between 4.7 and 4.8 seconds in both C/D and Motor Trend...
 
It is never OK to compare times of two different drivers, but C/D's times should be fine when compared against other C/D times. Consistency is what counts.
Click to expand...

agreed.

But any half-decent driver can do either/both of these.
Click to expand...

disagree fully. you're talking about a magazing that has brock yates on retainer. or maybe that's road and track. either way - professional drivers will never produce the same results as normal humans. period. and for the record, manufacturers do not cheat like magazines do - they prefer accuracy to bull**** reporting in order to sell stuff.

And this topic has been beaten to death before, lets not hash it out again.
Click to expand...

agreed.
 
most automakers rate their cars what i would call correctly. mercedes is known for under-rating its official 0-60 times, and bmw's been known to do this too. don't make me bring up the wrx example again, please.

YSSMAN
They actually do not speed shift when using a manual transmission, and they have talked about that many times. They will usually line the car up at the strip and do a few runs to find how well the car launches at a particular RPM and what kind of throttle they should give it, and after the data has been collected, they use their best times... Guess what, every American automotive magazine does this... Hell, even Motor Trend will brag about it... When they first tested the Evolution VIII here in the US they talked about doing the 5500RPM clutch dumps to get the car to hurry to 60 in less than 5 seconds...
Click to expand...

exactly. they cheat.
 
^^^ that's cheating? isnt it simply finding the fastest way for any car to go? they do it for all cars, so how's it cheating?
Also, if they do all the things for all cars,(Motor Trend does, at least) how's it a bad thing? They're simply seeing what it CAN do....
Can't say for C&D or R&T, but Motor Trend ALWAYS finds the best RPM's to launch, speed shifts (doesnt lift) and factors climate in (so two cars tested on different days in diff locations are equal). This all seems quite logical, that way people don't see a Civic SI running a 15.9 in 90Degrees, with 95%humidity, than a Cobalt SS Running 14.4 in 70 deg. and 37%humidity

By the way, these mag drivers arent all that great, not only have I seen other people beat their times with some cars, I've personally beaten some at a strip myself....

By the way, Blazin...
Jeep Cherokee SRT-8: 6.1L HEMI V8 @ 420HP, 420lb-ft
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 12.0
1/4 mile: 13.2@104
Top Speed:155

This is better and faster and quicker than a typhoon, which I believe, ran high 13's and couldnt reach 155 in stock trim.
 
That is blatent cheating. How cany you not tell that, that is cheating. How much does the jeep grand cherooke weigh in at? Im sceptical of those 0-60 numbers as it out guns a SUV I wont mention right now wihich has a quite a bit more power.
 
The Typhoon is still 13 years older, for something that old and as crappy as the 4.3L is I think it's fairly good.
 
Poverty
That is blatent cheating. How cany you not tell that, that is cheating. How much does the jeep grand cherooke weigh in at? Im sceptical of those 0-60 numbers as it out guns a SUV I wont mention right now wihich has a quite a bit more power.
Click to expand...
The 6.1 L Hemi might be a little underrated.

Take a look at this dyno sheet, from a 1500 mile 2006 Magnm SRT8 (http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/hennesseyperformance/Dyno.php?cart=bsmBbnZg)
pic46hz.jpg


With a conservative 15% driveline loss that would put it at 431 hp at the crank, or with a more realistic 20% that would be 458 hp....if it were in fact a 420 horse engine I would expect more like 340ish hp at the rear...
 
YSSMAN
... I can maybe think of one car in recent memory that did not live up to the factory performance figures, and it was the origional LS6-powered Cadillac CTS-V... GM rated the car at 4.6 0-60, the best I had ever read was between 4.7 and 4.8 seconds in both C/D and Motor Trend...
Click to expand...

However, Cadillac realizes that today as they claim all their V-Models can do 0-60 in under 5 seconds.
 
...All of their V-Series models can indeed do 0-60 in less than five seconds, but the claim that they had origionally made for the 5.7L LS6-powered CTS-V fell short of GM's claims. Most of the problems were do to axle hop, so thier driver must have known EXACTLY what to do when launching the car.

@POVERTY: Why do you have such a hard time believeing that the Cherokee SRT-8 outran the Porsche Cayanne Turbo by a long shot? The Cherokee weighs in at 4794lbs, compared to the Porsche at 6790lbs. Yes, the Porsche does have a 30HP advantage and an extra cog in the gearbox, but the thing is just too damn heavy... I'm begining to question as to wether or not the Turbo S version will top the Cherokee...

...BTW: How long is it going to be before Lingenfelter drops a 427TT under the hood of the Trailblazer SS?
 
Blazin - I know Typhoon are amazing machines... and the Cyclones as well, But they're no longer the fastest SUV's ever built, is all.


Poverty - Tell me why it's cheating, when ALL cars get the benefit? tell me how it's not more accurate, then maybe I'll be a believer
 
YSSMAN
The Cherokee weighs in at 4794lbs, compared to the Porsche at 6790lbs.
Click to expand...

6790lb's? Thats over 3 tonnes, I find that hard to believe

Just checking sites and they say the Porsche Cayenne Turbo weighs 5192lb's

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/cayenne_turbo.asp

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suv/112_0310_frst_porsche/index1.html

and even Porsche themselves

http://www.porsche.com/uk/models/cayenne/cayenne-turbo-s/featuresandspecs/

Turns out the maximum permissible gross weight is 6790lbs not the actual weight.
 
Oops my bad, I should have known that from the first place. All I remembered was that every magazine joked about it weighing in near 6000lbs...
 
@POVERTY: Why do you have such a hard time believeing that the Cherokee SRT-8 outran the Porsche Cayanne Turbo by a long shot? The Cherokee weighs in at 4794lbs, compared to the Porsche at 6790lbs. Yes, the Porsche does have a 30HP advantage and an extra cog in the gearbox, but the thing is just too damn heavy... I'm begining to question as to wether or not the Turbo S version will top the Cherokee...
Click to expand...

I wouldnt call the difference of about a sec a long shot but I was never talking about the cayenne turbo. I was talking about the Mercedes ML63 AMG with its NA 6.3 Liter monster of a engine producing 510hp and 465lb ft of torque weighin in at 4623lbs (2095kg). So its more powerful and lighter yet does 0-60 in 5 secs...

Did you know that one of jeeps big trucks would be considered as bus over in the UK. Just a fact I picked up.

Poverty - Tell me why it's cheating, when ALL cars get the benefit? tell me how it's not more accurate, then maybe I'll be a believer
Click to expand...

All cars benifit but its the dumbest and stupidest way of testing cars ever.!!! Why would someone want to test their cars in such a b-sh?!t way? All the figures C/D provide you will never be able to produce. Its just so dumb...
 
the tools car and driver (and the rest of the mags) use to measure 0-60 times are cheating because they simply have access to better drivers and technology than anyone else. they give a car seven or eight runs trying to figure out the best way to launch it, then they give it another few to try to eek out the single best 0-60 time, which is then calculated using gps and various other expensive technologies. you and me on the street don't have this luxury, so our cars will never "feel" as quick as the magazines report. that's not to say car and driver is still an unbiased source for comparison - it is - but i strongly disagree with anyone comparing two different sources. they all cheat in their own ways.

regarding cadillacs: i've read in more than one car magazine that cadillacs launch best from a full stop, without revs, because their wheels spin too much if you rev it. that would account for the consistency in times.

i leave you with this: subaru claimed the wrx's 0-60 was 6.4 seconds, until road and track tested it and got 5.4 seconds (by cheating). subaru then used 5.4 seconds in every advertisement for the next three years, knowing it was full of ****. do note that the accepted 0-60 for the wrx sti, which has 73 more horsepower than the wrx, is about 5.1 seconds. road and track would probably claim 4.1 seconds though...
 
M5Power
the tools car and driver (and the rest of the mags) use to measure 0-60 times are cheating because they simply have access to better drivers and technology than anyone else. they give a car seven or eight runs trying to figure out the best way to launch it, then they give it another few to try to eek out the single best 0-60 time, which is then calculated using gps and various other expensive technologies. you and me on the street don't have this luxury, so our cars will never "feel" as quick as the magazines report.
Click to expand...
I don't believe a word of it.
1) Using expensive technologies to measure the time will not make it "feel" any faster. It's just how you measure it. In fact, the SAE correction factor can mean that if I take my car to a drag strip, I'll see a quicker time. Also, my engine is broken in, I won't use a full tank of gas, and I can leave the spare tire at home, and I can "cheat" easily in my own way...ice the intake, and plenty of other little tricks...
2) Seven or eight runs? I drive my car every day--in a week, I have 100s of oppertunities to test a differnet shift point or launch RPM. While a magazine might begin to feel owt how my car behaves on a level, clean surface, I know what to expect on every surface, ever temperature, and every grade. Whether I have the skill and concentration to extract that every time I want to is a different matter, but don't try and tell me some professional driver can "know" my car better in eight passes and a week of driving than I can over thousands of miles.
 
skip0110
I don't believe a word of it.
1) Using expensive technologies to measure the time will not make it "feel" any faster.
Click to expand...

no - but it will give an inflated time. and then when you drive it, it will not feel as quick as it "should" based on what the magazine ran. that was my point.

It's just how you measure it. In fact, the SAE correction factor can mean that if I take my car to a drag strip, I'll see a quicker time.
Click to expand...

i wasn't talking about a drag strip...

2) Seven or eight runs? I drive my car every day--in a week, I have 100s of oppertunities to test a differnet shift point or launch RPM. While a magazine might begin to feel owt how my car behaves on a level, clean surface, I know what to expect on every surface, ever temperature, and every grade. Whether I have the skill and concentration to extract that every time I want to is a different matter, but don't try and tell me some professional driver can "know" my car better in eight passes and a week of driving than I can over thousands of miles.
Click to expand...

a professional driver may not know your car better than you, but he certainly can find the best launch point faster - and then shift a lot faster than you or i can once he's found it. therein lies the problem.
 
i think that if i were to measure my cars 0- 60 id try several times to try and figure out which is the best way to launch it. i dont consider that cheating in anyway.

are drag racers cheating when they practise? no? then how is testing to get the best launch cheating?

its like going to the track with new brakes and tires and just going balls out without getting a feel for how they make the car handle. its stupid to assume that trying to optimise your launch is cheating. stupid.
 
Oh my God, are we still on Car&Driver's testing? We've discussed this a million times before... Poverty, if you don't believe their results, fine... DON'T. Since they're the only ones who've gotten times close to what we've gotten in testing on our car, I tend to believe them.

We don't need to bring up SAE, 0-60mph vs 0-100kmh, etcetera... again... not to mention track temperatures, different tires for different markets (the Evo is a good case for that... US Spec Evos come on stickier tires than JDM ones, which allow more wheelspin and are easier on transmissions)... blah blah blah blah.

As for their testing regimen being bull****... why, yes... it is. They often test cars so hard that the clutch is nearly useless at the end of the day. They do enough tests that tire temperatures and stickiness start coming into play. They do things to an Evo or a WRX that would cost owners a couple of thousand bucks to fix. I call that dedication.

Their times are possible if you know how to do them. Period. I've seen it myself. And, for the life of me, there's no way that I personally could do their times with a manual even if I've seen someone else do it.

If you guys want real world numbers, go on over to consumer reports or edmunds. They actually don't try to fry the clutch of every car they get their hands on, and their times in some MT cars are slower than others. There's one publication that actually tests from idle at a stop, with a normal launch, and gets times 2 seconds or more off everyone else's pace.

Now, what was the topic of this thread again?
 
yeah, i think we all agree that their drivers are unequalled in real life. let's move on, i hate discussing this topic. everyone refuses to believe that their trusty car magazines could possibly be wrong.
 
Actually. Their times are right, they're just unrealistic for about 99% of the driving population.
 
agreed.

now back to general motors.

who else thinks the malibu's daytime running lights are way too bright?

:D
 

Latest Posts

Back