e34bmw_a33max said:from the manufactures web sites:
the new jeep SRT (415hp) says 0-60 in under 5 sec dry or wet
the 300c SRT (425hp) says 0-60 mid 5's
is this only because of the 4wd? i would figure the jeep would weigh a ton more.....
isn't it just a supercharged jag engine? 390hp that'd be around 7sec to 60Rathi134 said:its still a jeep.
the new range rover engines are hotter.
id rather push a land rover than drive a jeep
what blew my mind was the .9g on the skidpad. it's only lowerd an inch.MrEous said:Jeep SRT = ~5900lbs
300c SRT = 4160lbs
Quite a difference...but you're right, the SRT-Jeep's specially-designed 4-wheel drive system gives it a huge advantage from the line. If you were to compare slips I bet you'd see the Jeep winning in the 1/8th and the 300c SRT caught up at the end of the 1/4.
e34bmw_a33max said:isn't it just a supercharged jag engine? 390hp that'd be around 7sec to 60
i liked it better with the bmw 4.4 V-8
i hate jaguar, but i agree. i'd rather have a range rover.
nothing like taking a $75k suv out rock climbing.Rathi134 said:they also have a 400 horsepower supercharged v8 coming out. Im sure a smaller pulley will up the power quite a bit, along with some ecu work
speed isnt really too much of a concern. i love off roading
wildmane said:You can't take a Land Rover out if you wanna do some serious rock climbing. I went rock climbing in a jeep and the thing could go over anything.. try taking an SUV like the Land Rover that is as tall as it is and go rock climbing.
So I guess I proved my point then, huh? Jeeps are better for rock climbing.Rathi134 said:as far as im concerned a range/land rovers are a step above "suvs". Suvs are bullshit.
Land/range rovers can go offroading and will do it better then your jeep except in rock climbing lol.