The Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the quickest, most powerful Jeep vehicle ever combining the 420-horsepower 6.1L SRT HEMI® V8 and four-wheel drive. This breathtaking Jeep also boasts a pair of firsts - the first Jeep branded Street and Racing Technology (SRT) vehicle and the first fourwheel drive SRT vehicle.

The all-new 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 outperforms competitive vehicles that cost twice as much and sets a new benchmark, with incredible on-road and all-weather performance. The all-new 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 gets power to the pavement through an SRT-engineered full-time four-wheel drive system.

A key part of the four-wheel-drive system is the transfer case that SRT engineers created from two different cases. They combined the front half of one case, chosen for its capability and light weight, with the rear half of a heavier-duty case, selected for it's toughness and ability to transfer power. Other elements of the drive system are a special torque converter, upgraded output shaft, heavy-duty driveshaft and Dana 44 rear differential.

With a 0-60 mph time of under 5 seconds (wet or dry), the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the second quickest SRT vehicle eclipsed only by the 510 horsepower Dodge Viper SRT10.

Introductory base MSRP: $39,995.00

It will be interesting to see a comparison test between it and the TrailBlazer SS.. Ford needs to do an Explorer GT so it can play in this niche also..

DAMN that's cheap. How much is Chevy asking for the SS Trailblazer?

DAMN that's cheap. How much is Chevy asking for the SS Trailblazer?

[post="37765"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

$33,600.

Great price. This is such a niche product that price needed to be a major factor in the SRT8's sales strategy. Especially in today's increasingly conservative consumer climate, pricing of products such as this Jeep need to be kept low. The real question is: how well will this sell (and what are the sales targets?). Even with a low price, I do not see much demand for such a vehicle... Those are some serious performance #'s though! Cheers to DCX again. Now start juicing up your weak V6 line!

$33,600.

[post="37771"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think $33.6K is for the 2 wheel drive SS.

I'll be surprised if that 0-60 number holds true. In the latest MT the Charger SRT-8 got 0-60 in 5.0 (if I remember correctly, I can't find the issue right now) and the GC has AWD and probably a worse drag coefficient.

Interesting... Um... I'll take a Trailblazer, please. It's cheaper, I don't need 4WD, it looks better, and the performance is in the same ballpark.

With a 0-60 mph time of under 5 seconds (wet or dry), the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the second quickest SRT vehicle eclipsed only by the 510 horsepower Dodge Viper SRT10.

This is faster than 300C SRT-8 and Charger SRT-8? :blink:

With a 0-60 mph time of under 5 seconds (wet or dry), the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the second quickest SRT vehicle eclipsed only by the 510 horsepower Dodge Viper SRT10.

This is faster than 300C SRT-8 and Charger SRT-8? :blink:

[post="37870"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I'm sure the AWD does a much better job of getting all that power and torque to the ground....much better than the RWD/TC of the others....

It sounds like they are going by 0-60 times, not 1/4mi times. In that case, the AWD Jeep will be ahead of the Charger. But after that, the Charger will catch up.

It will be interesting to see a comparison test between it and the TrailBlazer SS..  Ford needs to do an Explorer GT so it can play in this niche also..

[post="37729"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

All the Explorer would need is the Lightnings engine. That would be a great competition, but I think the Explorer would win.

Ouchhh is that ever gorgeous in performance/looks.

I'm sure the AWD does a much better job of getting all that power and torque to the ground....much better than the RWD/TC of the others....

[post="37940"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Exactly. They said "quickest", which just means 0-60. I think the SRT-8 LX's would beat it in the 1/4 mile.

Here's some comparison numbers that someone complied. Some are actual, and some are mfg. estimates:

2006 Porsche Cayenne

Starting MSRP $42,200 – $90,200

EPA Fuel Economy: City: 13 – 16 Highway: 18 – 20

Available Engines:
247-hp, 3.2-liter V-6...........0-60 8.5 seconds
340-hp, 4.5-liter V-8...........0-60 6.8 seconds
450-hp, 4.5-liter V-8...........0-60 5.2 seconds
500-hp, 4.5-liter V-8

Available Transmissions: 6-speed automatic w/OD and auto-manual
6-speed manual w/OD

2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer SS

Base price $34,500 (est)

Vehicle layout Front engine, RWD or AWD, 4-door, 5-pass SUV

Engine 6.0L 391 hp 395 lb-ft
OHV 16-valve V-8

Transmission 4-speed automatic

0-60 mph 5.8 sec (est)

1/4 mile 14.0 sec @ 100.0 mph (est)

2006 Range Rover Sport

Price $56,000 for the base $65,000 for the supercharged version

Engines:
4.4-liter 300-hp V8
4.2-liter, 390-hp, 410-lb-ft supercharged V8; 4wd, six-speed automatic

0 TO 60 MPH: 7.5 seconds

2006 Range Rover

Base price: $89,950

Engine: DOHC supercharged 4.2 liter V-8, 400 hp/425 lb-ft

Transmission: Six-speed automatic, full-time four-wheel-drive

Grand Cherokee SRT8

Pricing ??? ($40,000-$45,000)

6.1-liter HEMI producing 420 horsepower and 420 lb.-ft. of torque

0-60 mph in under 5 seconds
(Motor Trend or Truck trend have it at 4.6 sec.)
0-100-0 mph in the low 19-second range,
60-0 mph braking distance of approximately 125 feet.

See review of the SRT8 here:
http://trucktrend.com/roadtests/suv/163_0508_first_cherokee/

Exactly.  They said "quickest", which just means 0-60.  I think the SRT-8 LX's would beat it in the 1/4 mile.

[post="38146"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I agree.....

In many ways, that's why cars like the EVO and WRX show such impressive acceleration times.....it's the great launch they get with the AWD. You have to abuse the clutch and driveline to get those sub-5 sec 0-60's with those cars, but it's possible.

One time, from a rolling start, when I had my Mazda6 V6 5-speed, I WASTED a WRX up to about 70-80mph. The WRX is supposed to go 0-60 in about 5.8 seconds according to the buff mags....the Mazda6 in about 6.7 seconds with manual. BUT, in this case, I made sure he couldn't launch his car (he was behind me...) so I rolled away from the light in first gear and then once we were moving, punched it at about 5 mph. Since he didn't have a chance to dump the clutch, he was off-boost for awhile and that's all the advantage I needed. He never caught me.

Back on topic....I think the SRT-8 will be a monster with a brake-torque launch and AWD but the aerodynamics and weight will begin to catch it by the quarter-mile....but same will be true for Cayenne Turbo and TrailBlazer SS.

This calls for a GREAT Skunkworks project for someone with money... Buy one of these with everything except the body (the frame, drivetrain, engine), and throw on a sleek, sporty body and smaller tires. That would be sweet!

2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer SS

Base price $34,500 (est)

Vehicle layout Front engine, RWD or AWD, 4-door, 5-pass SUV

Engine 6.0L 391 hp 395 lb-ft
OHV 16-valve V-8

Transmission 4-speed automatic

0-60 mph 5.8 sec (est)

1/4 mile 14.0 sec @ 100.0 mph (est)

MT data. But using C&D's data...

2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer SS

Base price $33,600 (est)

Vehicle layout Front engine, RWD or AWD, 4-door, 5-pass SUV

Engine 6.0L 395 hp 400 lb-ft
OHV 16-valve V-8

Transmission 4-speed automatic

0-60 mph 5.4 sec

1/4 mile 13.9 sec

Interesting... Um... I'll take a Trailblazer, please. It's cheaper, I don't need 4WD, it looks better, and the performance is in the same ballpark.

[post="37850"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Not only that, but when the TrailBlazer was redesigned for 2002, it GAINED cargo room, unlike the 2005 GC (one of few things I don't like about it).

Not only that, but when the TrailBlazer was redesigned for 2002, it GAINED cargo room, unlike the 2005 GC (one of few things I don't like about it).

[post="38543"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

That's what the Commander is for. The GC sacrificed some cargo room for style. Which looks better.....the new GC or a Trailblazer? Which works better off-road?

Exactly.  They said "quickest", which just means 0-60.  I think the SRT-8 LX's would beat it in the 1/4 mile.

[post="38146"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Wrong. Quickest is any measure of acceleration, 0.60, 1/4 mile, whatever. Fastest is top speed only, or terminal velocity at the end of the 1/4 mile, so you can be quicker than a car that posts a higher trap speed.

Edited November 4, 200519 yr by samuel

That's what the Commander is for. The GC sacrificed some cargo room for style. Which looks better.....the new GC or a Trailblazer? Which works better off-road?

Um... the Trailblazer looks better. So does the old GC. I could care less which is better off-road, though...

Um... the Trailblazer looks better. So does the old GC. I could care less which is better off-road, though...

[post="38694"][/post]

I'll give you the old GC, but the Trailblazer?? It was never all that atractive:

Edited November 5, 200519 yr by BrewSwillis

I think BV means the TB SS, which looks pretty good.

I think BV means the TB SS, which looks pretty good.

[post="38708"][/post]

Yeah, I think the SS is pretty damn hott......but Mule 13 LS was talking about the Trailblazer redesign(2002) gaining cargo room vs the 2005 GC losing cargo room.....and I said the GC looked better though.

It would be hard for me to pick between the TBlazer SS and the GC SRT-8, as far as looks go!

Edited November 5, 200519 yr by BrewSwillis

I've always liked how the Trailblazer looked, even the non-SS. It looks fresher than the GC.

Edited November 5, 200519 yr by CaddyXLR-V

Yeah... I was talking about the TB SS, not the regular TB. The Envoy looks better than the regular TB...

That's what the Commander is for.  The GC sacrificed some cargo room for style.  Which looks better.....the new GC or a Trailblazer?  Which works better off-road?

[post="38593"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Commander has ONE cubic foot more than the Grand Cherokee! And (Commander) is just awful from my experience. I think the Grand Cherokee and TrailBlazer are equal style-wise, sorry. They look perfect (almost) for respective Jeep and Chevy trucks, but while TrailBlazer has a lousy interior and even worse standard equipment-to-price ratio, it wins on cargo space (80 cubic feet vs. GC's paltry 67 cubic feet).