• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Another 707hp on the way?

C

cabri

Diamond Member
Link

With the popularity of the Hellcat twins, and the newfound possibility of supercar power at premium SUV prices, there was a push for FCA to spread the insanity across its entire lineup. “Hellcat all the things!” people cried, and now, it looks like someone at FCA has been listening. The Jeep Grand Cherokee, that venerable people mover you could buy instead of a Hellcat, appears to be next in line to receive the 707- treatment.

Last week, Motor Authority reported that FCA is developing an ultra high-performance Jeep under the name Project K. And while we shudder to think of what else Chrysler could’ve been developing under the name Project K, the world’s most powerful SUV should make a welcome addition to the Hellcat stable...
Click to expand...
 
0d6217_df.jpg
 
I don't understand the appeal personally. That much horsepower in a muscle car or sports car is a thing of beauty. That much horsepower in an SUV, which (I assume) weighs more, has a higher center of gravity, worse weight distribution, more body roll, etc. just seems senseless.

I know there are some quick Jeeps and other SUVs out there (the previous SRT-8 being an example), and blowing by a previous-gen M3 in your SUV certainly will turn some heads, but... why?
 
A chevy blazer showed up at my local drag strip. Thing looked dead stock. Ran 9's in the 1/4. Had twin turbo's and coupled with four wheel drive it hooked and went. Very impressive.
 
Squeetard said:
A chevy blazer showed up at my local drag strip. Thing looked dead stock. Ran 9's in the 1/4. Had twin turbo's and coupled with four wheel drive it hooked and went. Very impressive.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, I'm going to say a Blazer is 4500 pounds, so to get under 10 seconds with 4wd, you'd need about 900 horsepower. How close am I? And, how long would that drivetrain last doing runs like that?
 
wabbitslayer said:
Me too :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Even though the Jeep Grand Cherokee uses the same platform as the M-class MB? 😉

I drove the SRT-8 Jeep GC and it was fast, but not crazy-fast or anything. With 707hp, it would probably be more similar in 0-60 and 1/4mi as the Cayenne GTS. Handling would be much different, for sure.

It would make the SRT 'more special'. Maybe just offer the current SRT engine option on the Overland/Limited and the new SRT is the 707hp?

All that said, a 707hp Jeep driver would probably scare me on the road too...but not any more than someone in the X6M today. 😛
 
I had a '13 GC SRT8, and while it was a pretty fun car I felt that the 470hp it had was just a bit anemic (I know, right?!). Putting the hellcat in there would make it a lot more fun 🙂

I got rid of it in favor of a supercharged '14 Raptor, which is even more fun.
 
Good for them. I would try to shake Chrysler's well deserved rattlebox POS stigma a different way, myself. Nothing wrong with slapping a huge motor into a chassis not designed for it, but I would think the extra power would exacerbate the problem of the chassis being barely tied together.

I yearn for the day that torque numbers are thrown around. HP is great for marketing and a basic measuring stick, but the torque is what is actually turning the wheels, why not compare torque curve plots?
 
natto fire said:
Good for them. I would try to shake Chrysler's well deserved rattlebox POS stigma a different way, myself. Nothing wrong with slapping a huge motor into a chassis not designed for it, but I would think the extra power would exacerbate the problem of the chassis being barely tied together.

I yearn for the day that torque numbers are thrown around. HP is great for marketing and a basic measuring stick, but the torque is what is actually turning the wheels, why not compare torque curve plots?
Click to expand...

Even during the worst years 2006-2010 GC wasn't the shitty rattlebox with a chasis that could't take some decent power. The GC has for a long while been a true luxury SUV platform, one that even Maserati is/going to borrow from for their SUV.

Outside the Viper there isn't a platform better prepaired for a Hellcat than the GC.
 
Topweasel said:
Even during the worst years 2006-2010 GC wasn't the shitty rattlebox with a chasis that could't take some decent power. The GC has for a long while been a true luxury SUV platform, one that even Maserati is/going to borrow from for their SUV.

Outside the Viper there isn't a platform better prepaired for a Hellcat than the GC.
Click to expand...

True. RR has had a SC RR Sport for a while. Lots of times they are just used for grocery runs...this isn't way different in power.
 
Topweasel said:
Even during the worst years 2006-2010 GC wasn't the shitty rattlebox with a chasis that could't take some decent power. The GC has for a long while been a true luxury SUV platform, one that even Maserati is/going to borrow from for their SUV.

Outside the Viper there isn't a platform better prepaired for a Hellcat than the GC.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think the GCs are based on the M class. I have a '14 Overland with the 5.7L and 8 speed and it felt significantly faster than a X5 35 msport that I was cross shopping.
 
natto fire said:
Good for them. I would try to shake Chrysler's well deserved rattlebox POS stigma a different way, myself. Nothing wrong with slapping a huge motor into a chassis not designed for it, but I would think the extra power would exacerbate the problem of the chassis being barely tied together.

I yearn for the day that torque numbers are thrown around. HP is great for marketing and a basic measuring stick, but the torque is what is actually turning the wheels, why not compare torque curve plots?
Click to expand...

Torque at the wheels is dependent upon gearing, while horsepower takes RPM into account. Horsepower is a more useful metric when you're looking at what happens at the output shaft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top