I intend to!!!!
"James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
...
> Keep the '04 GC.
>
> "Jack Carter" > wrote in message
> ...
> | Well, I drove one yesterday. And, counting me, there were four people in
it.
> | It felt good. I think my GC would give it some competetion up to about
50.
> | Just out of curiosity, I asked them how much to trade. My GC is an '04
> | Limited with 3K miles on it, has all of the options except GPS and
> | window-stickered for close to $39K. The RT had a window sticker of $33K
> | even. Are you ready??! They'd "put me in it" for a mere $10K
difference!!!!
> |
> |
> |
> | "Wicked96SS" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | >
> | > On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Jack Carter wrote:
> | >
> | > > I used to do a LOT of drag racing myself at local strips. One of the
> | road
> | > > tests I recently read for the RT quoted a 0-60 time of 7.1 seconds.
(The
> | > > writer said it seemed "sluggish" coming off the line and that there
were
> | > > times when it didn't feel like it had 340hp.) But I just got a Road
&
> | Track
> | > > that says 6.1. Don't know who to believe. I'm going to drive one
this
> | > > afternoon so I'll have a better idea of how it might run after that.
> | >
> | > What source do you have for the 7.1 second 0-60? I would really like
to
> | > read about that. Every review I have read online have put the 0-60
from
> | > 6.0 to 6.3, but nothing slower. Granted I have only read a dozen or
so
> | > reviews.
> | >
> | > I have gotten some good data about the torque curve of the engine as
well
> | > as the gear ratios in the transmission, and have run some numbers
using
> | > Desktop Dyno and Desktop Dragstrip and it gave similar results as to
what
> | > the reviews I have read said. Of course, I don't have all the
variables,
> | > and the software has a tendancy to be a bit "optimistic" if you don't
know
> | > how to set it up... but it predicted a 14.6 @ 97 MPH quarter mile out
of a
> | > stock RWD Dodge Magnum.
> | >
> | > Again, this is very unscientific, and making a lot of assumptions, but
I
> | > would believe it, on a good day, it could do that.
> | >
> | > Still, a very sharp looking car!
> | >
> | > Thanks!
> | > Wicked96SS
> | >
> | > > "Wicked96SS" > wrote in message
> | > > ...
> | > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Jack Carter wrote:
> | > > >
> | > > > > I don't know where you got your GC weight figure but it sounds
far
> | too
> | > > high!
> | > > > > I have an '04 GC with the HO V8 and have tested it several times
> | with a
> | > > > > G-Tech Pro performance meter. It breaks seven seconds from 0-60
> | > > > > consistently. The GC seems to have a very high RPM stall torque
> | > > converter
> | > > > > and, as a result, really flies off the line. I'm getting faster
> | times
> | > > from
> | > > > > my '04 that the 5.7 liter 98 that I used to have.
> | > > >
> | > > > It may sound high, but I saw that figure on several websites, and
> | Edmunds
> | > > > has the vehicle listed at 6100 pounds.
> | > > >
> | > > > As for sub 7 second 0-60, that is impressive for an SUV! But I
have
> | also
> | > > > read several
> | > > > instances whre 0-60's in the Dodge Magnum RT were 6.1 seconds,
with a
> | 14.6
> | > > > second quarter mile. As a drag racer, to put it in perspective,
at
> | those
> | > > > times and speeds, .9 seconds difference (assuming that the Jeep
could
> | keep
> | > > > up) is about 9 car lengths, substancially faster.
> | > > >
> | > > > Again, I would really like to see some actual numbers, and not
just
> | > > > guessing on what the AWD RT would do... I have a feeling it would
be
> | > > > slightly faster than the Jeep.... although I don't have any facts
to
> | back
> | > > > this up.
> | > > >
> | > > > Thanks!
> | > > >
> | > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > > > "Wicked96SS" > wrote in message
> | > > > >
...
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Jack Carter wrote:
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > > From what I've read, anyone who owns an 04 Grand Cherokee
with
> | the
> | > > HO V8
> | > > > > > > (AWD) probably won't take a back seat to an RT AWD in a 0-60
> | run.
> | > > > > > >
> | > > > > > >
> | > > > > > > "Wicked96SS" > wrote in message
> | > > > > > >
> | ...
> | > > > > > > >
> | > > > > > > > Does anybody know what the performance numbers are for the
RT
> | AWD?
> | > > I
> | > > > > have
> | > > > > > > > found several sources for the RWD version, but I am
interested
> | in
> | > > the
> | > > > > AWD
> | > > > > > > > version, and thought there might (probably) be some
parasitic
> | loss
> | > > > > from
> | > > > > > > > the AWD system.
> | > > > > > > >
> | > > > > > > > Either way, if anybody has some 0-60 or 1/4mile times and
> | speeds,
> | > > it
> | > > > > would
> | > > > > > > > be greatly appreciated.
> | > > > > > > >
> | > > > > > > > Thanks!
> | > > > > > > > Wicked96SS
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > Do you have any numbers to back that up? I did a little
research,
> | and
> | > > the
> | > > > > > Magnum as a higher rear end ratio, more power, more torque,
and
> | weighs
> | > > > > > less... I woudl assume that even the AWD version would be
> | considerably
> | > > > > > faster than the Grand Cherokee...
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > Grand Cherokee:
> | > > > > > HP: 265 @ 5100 RPMs
> | > > > > > TQ: 325 @ 3600 RPMs
> | > > > > > WEIGHT: 5150 lbs.
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > Dodge Magnum:
> | > > > > > HP: 340 @ 5000 RPMs
> | > > > > > TQ: 390 @ 4000 RPMs
> | > > > > > WEIGHT: 4393 lbs.
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > Just curious!
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > > Thanks!
> | > > > > >
> | > > > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > > >
> | > > >
> | > > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
|