Here is a nice litte test showing some track numbers of our beasts in comparison to the new more powerful porsche. We have it beat to 60mph but the turbo's help it edge us by just a mere 2 tenths in the 1/4 mile.

The porsche is still not worth the extra $94k in my mind.

Link to test: http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/2009/08/il-track-tested-2007-jeep-grand-cherokee-srt8-vs-2009-porsche-cayenne-turbo-s.html?tid=edmunds.il.home.photopanel..3.*

Nice find Dave!! I will read it when I get home cuz it has been blocked here at work.

i'm thinking you can get a whole lotta mods for 94k

I thought the newest Cayenne Turbo was supposed to be much faster. I'm glad to see it isn't. :)

Nice find Dave!! I will read it when I get home cuz it has been blocked here at work.

Here you go:

"IL Track Tested: 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 vs. 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/turbos-vs-srt8.blog.jpg

Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.

The whole idea of a high-performance sport-utility vehicle is a little tough for us to swallow. It's a totally nonsensical concept, yet it continues to thrive even in the face of expensive gas and even more expensive vehicles.

That said, who wouldn't appreciate driving a 2-ton, four-wheel-drive vehicle that can run 13s in the quarter-mile? There aren't many that can, but we've tested two that impressed us.

Most recently, it was the 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S that rolled through the garage and blew us away with its 550-horsepower V8. Then again, it should for $139,000. If your budget doesn't allow for such extravagance, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the next best thing. For a mere $45K, it offers a similar experience. How similar? See for yourself in our latest head-to-head match-up straight from the test track.


Grand Cherokee SRT8 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
0-30 (sec): 1.6 1.9
0-45 (sec): 3.0 3.3
0-60 (sec): 4.7 5
0-75 (sec): 7.3 7.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 102.3 13.2 @ 105.2
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): N/A 4.7
30-0 (ft): 33 28
60-0 (ft): 128 111
Skid pad lateral acceleration (g): 0.84 0.89
Slalom 61.9 66.2


Vehicle: 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8
Odometer: N/A
Date: 9/10/2007
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $45,465

Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Five-speed automatic
Engine Type: V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 6.1 (6,059/370)
Redline (rpm): 6,400
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 420 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 420 @ 4,800
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Disc
Steering System: Power rack-and-pinion
Suspension Type (front): Double wishbone
Suspension Type (rear): Solid live axle
Tire Size (front): 255/45R20Z
Tire Size (rear): 285/40R20Z
Tire Brand: Goodyear
Tire Model: Eagle RS-A
Tire Type: All-season
Wheel Size: 20-by-9.0 inches front/20-by-10.0 inches rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): Forged aluminum
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,819

Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 1.6
0-45 (sec): 3.0
0-60 (sec): 4.7
0-75 (sec): 7.3
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 102.3
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): N/A
30-0 (ft): 33
60-0 (ft): 128
Braking Rating: Good
Slalom (mph): 61.9
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.84
Handling Rating: Good
Db @ Idle: 50.9
Db @ Full Throttle: 78.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 69.7

Acceleration Comments: An unreal launch that fels like a freeway rear-ender! Zero slop of delay as I let off the brake. Upshifts are very quick yet not particularly harsh. The size of the Jeep and how quickly it accelerates felt at odds. It shouldn't do this, but it does.

Braking Comments: Good, not great brakes. I was expecting more bite, more power and less fade from SRT. Some dive but no change of direction.

Handling Comments: Skid pad: Mild understeer with throttle-modulated oversteer at the ready, but non-defeat ESP puts an end to it just as it begins.

Slalom: The SRT8 feels taller and tippier than it once did. Suspension winds up and releases, exaggerating that tall feeling. Non-defeat ESP applies brakes just as useful rotation begins. Frustrating and difficult to get a rhythm in the slalom.


Vehicle: 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
Odometer: 882
Date: 7/7/2009
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $139,070

Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Six-speed automatic
Engine Type: V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4.8 (4,806/293.3)
Redline (rpm): 6,700
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 550 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 553 @ 2,250
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Ventilated disc
Steering System: Speed-proportional power steering
Suspension Type (front): Double wishbone
Suspension Type (rear): Multilink
Tire Size (front): 295/35R21 107Y
Tire Size (rear): 295/35R21 107Y
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Latitude Sport
Tire Type: Summer
Wheel Size: 21-by-10 inches front/rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): Alloy
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 5,483

Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 1.9
0-45 (sec): 3.3
0-60 (sec): 5.0
0-75 (sec): 7.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph):13.2 @ 105.2
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.7
30-0 (ft): 28
60-0 (ft): 111
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 66.2
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.89
Handling Rating: Excellent
Db @ Idle: 47.7
Db @ Full Throttle: 70.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.9

Acceleration Comments: Glad to see they got rid of the 2nd-gear start in anything but Manual mode. Responds exceedingly well to brake torque up to around 3,000 rpm. Most of the power lives above 4,000 rpm, though. Shifts are both fast and smooth. Runs 2-5 were made in sport/sport.

Braking Comments: Not entirely convinced that the brakes were bedded properly (only 900 miles on the odometer) as they smoked quite a bit after acceleration and braking runs. Still, they displayed tremendous power and effectiveness -- especially for a 5,500-pound SUV.

Handling Comments: Skid pad: Subtle but stubborn understeer, good steering information and load-up. Only needs a little throttle to adjust line. Very little difference or intervention with the stability control on and off.

Slalom: Crazy-quick turn-in, laser precise, only a little strangeness from active roll bars that keep it totally flat. Eventually it oversteers, but only if provoked. Expected a better exit with more front-end bite. Otherwise this is a total physics rule-breaker."

Nice read..

I had a cayenne (just the S) and "upgraded" :D to the SRT8

Never looked back :D;)

Here you go:

"IL Track Tested: 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 vs. 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S

http://blogs.edmunds.com/straightline/turbos-vs-srt8.blog.jpg

Inside Line tests hundreds of vehicles a year, but not every vehicle gets a full write-up. The numbers still tell a story, though, so we present "IL Track Tested." It's a quick rundown of all the data we collected at the track, along with comments direct from the test drivers. Enjoy.

The whole idea of a high-performance sport-utility vehicle is a little tough for us to swallow. It's a totally nonsensical concept, yet it continues to thrive even in the face of expensive gas and even more expensive vehicles.

That said, who wouldn't appreciate driving a 2-ton, four-wheel-drive vehicle that can run 13s in the quarter-mile? There aren't many that can, but we've tested two that impressed us.

Most recently, it was the 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S that rolled through the garage and blew us away with its 550-horsepower V8. Then again, it should for $139,000. If your budget doesn't allow for such extravagance, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 is the next best thing. For a mere $45K, it offers a similar experience. How similar? See for yourself in our latest head-to-head match-up straight from the test track.


Grand Cherokee SRT8 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
0-30 (sec): 1.6 1.9
0-45 (sec): 3.0 3.3
0-60 (sec): 4.7 5
0-75 (sec): 7.3 7.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 102.3 13.2 @ 105.2
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): N/A 4.7
30-0 (ft): 33 28
60-0 (ft): 128 111
Skid pad lateral acceleration (g): 0.84 0.89
Slalom 61.9 66.2


Vehicle: 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8
Odometer: N/A
Date: 9/10/2007
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $45,465

Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Five-speed automatic
Engine Type: V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 6.1 (6,059/370)
Redline (rpm): 6,400
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 420 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 420 @ 4,800
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Disc
Steering System: Power rack-and-pinion
Suspension Type (front): Double wishbone
Suspension Type (rear): Solid live axle
Tire Size (front): 255/45R20Z
Tire Size (rear): 285/40R20Z
Tire Brand: Goodyear
Tire Model: Eagle RS-A
Tire Type: All-season
Wheel Size: 20-by-9.0 inches front/20-by-10.0 inches rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): Forged aluminum
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 4,819

Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 1.6
0-45 (sec): 3.0
0-60 (sec): 4.7
0-75 (sec): 7.3
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 13.4 @ 102.3
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): N/A
30-0 (ft): 33
60-0 (ft): 128
Braking Rating: Good
Slalom (mph): 61.9
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.84
Handling Rating: Good
Db @ Idle: 50.9
Db @ Full Throttle: 78.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 69.7

Acceleration Comments: An unreal launch that fels like a freeway rear-ender! Zero slop of delay as I let off the brake. Upshifts are very quick yet not particularly harsh. The size of the Jeep and how quickly it accelerates felt at odds. It shouldn't do this, but it does.

Braking Comments: Good, not great brakes. I was expecting more bite, more power and less fade from SRT. Some dive but no change of direction.

Handling Comments: Skid pad: Mild understeer with throttle-modulated oversteer at the ready, but non-defeat ESP puts an end to it just as it begins.

Slalom: The SRT8 feels taller and tippier than it once did. Suspension winds up and releases, exaggerating that tall feeling. Non-defeat ESP applies brakes just as useful rotation begins. Frustrating and difficult to get a rhythm in the slalom.


Vehicle: 2009 Porsche Cayenne Turbo S
Odometer: 882
Date: 7/7/2009
Driver: Chris Walton
Price: $139,070

Specifications:
Drive Type: All-wheel drive
Transmission Type: Six-speed automatic
Engine Type: V8
Displacement (cc/cu-in): 4.8 (4,806/293.3)
Redline (rpm): 6,700
Horsepower (hp @ rpm): 550 @ 6,000
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm): 553 @ 2,250
Brake Type (front): Ventilated disc
Brake Type (rear): Ventilated disc
Steering System: Speed-proportional power steering
Suspension Type (front): Double wishbone
Suspension Type (rear): Multilink
Tire Size (front): 295/35R21 107Y
Tire Size (rear): 295/35R21 107Y
Tire Brand: Michelin
Tire Model: Latitude Sport
Tire Type: Summer
Wheel Size: 21-by-10 inches front/rear
Wheel Material (front/rear): Alloy
As tested Curb Weight (lb): 5,483

Test Results:
0-30 (sec): 1.9
0-45 (sec): 3.3
0-60 (sec): 5.0
0-75 (sec): 7.2
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph):13.2 @ 105.2
0-60 with 1-ft Rollout (sec): 4.7
30-0 (ft): 28
60-0 (ft): 111
Braking Rating: Excellent
Slalom (mph): 66.2
Skid Pad Lateral Acceleration (g): 0.89
Handling Rating: Excellent
Db @ Idle: 47.7
Db @ Full Throttle: 70.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 65.9

Acceleration Comments: Glad to see they got rid of the 2nd-gear start in anything but Manual mode. Responds exceedingly well to brake torque up to around 3,000 rpm. Most of the power lives above 4,000 rpm, though. Shifts are both fast and smooth. Runs 2-5 were made in sport/sport.

Braking Comments: Not entirely convinced that the brakes were bedded properly (only 900 miles on the odometer) as they smoked quite a bit after acceleration and braking runs. Still, they displayed tremendous power and effectiveness -- especially for a 5,500-pound SUV.

Handling Comments: Skid pad: Subtle but stubborn understeer, good steering information and load-up. Only needs a little throttle to adjust line. Very little difference or intervention with the stability control on and off.

Slalom: Crazy-quick turn-in, laser precise, only a little strangeness from active roll bars that keep it totally flat. Eventually it oversteers, but only if provoked. Expected a better exit with more front-end bite. Otherwise this is a total physics rule-breaker."

Thanks bro! Your the man!

I saw them road course test the Cayenne GTS and it paced the carerra and handled nicely.

The SRT8 on the picture is photoshopped...

I guess they just dug out the SRT8 figures from their records to put them next to the new Cayenne Turbo S's. So much for "straight from the test track"... or is it just me getting on conspiracy-theory mode again?

Anyway it is reassuring to see that our trucks hold their ground against the competition despite the almost 5-year gap since they were designed.

The SRT8 on the picture is photoshopped...

I guess they just dug out the SRT8 figures from their records to put them next to the new Cayenne Turbo S's. So much for "straight from the test track"... or is it just me getting on conspiracy-theory mode again?

Anyway it is reassuring to see that our trucks hold their ground against the competition despite the almost 5-year gap since they were designed.

wow... good call bro... didnt even realize until i saw you mention it... ive actually seen that jeepsrt8 pic somewhere

i agree with you.. im not sure about conspiracy :) but the whole straight from the test track and pt of the article is totally misleading...

here is my take... if they tested the jeep in 07... then how do you know the testing is consistent?

Wow... not a very good showing for the SRT8. Seems a bit on the slow side doesn't it??

The SRT8 on the picture is photoshopped...

I guess they just dug out the SRT8 figures from their records to put them next to the new Cayenne Turbo S's. So much for "straight from the test track"... or is it just me getting on conspiracy-theory mode again?

Anyway it is reassuring to see that our trucks hold their ground against the competition despite the almost 5-year gap since they were designed.

you are dead on...

i knew that jeep looked familiar after you pointed that out


http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/rumplemenz/2006jeepgrandcherokeesrt820024123-E.jpg

they at least took the time to angle her ha

that article is so cheeesssy now

Isn't the pic of an '06?

Isn't the pic of an '06?

yeah you are right.. !! now its even more cheeeeeeesssy... that pic is from the 2006 gcsrt8 on edmunds.com... could this possibly get any worse?

Nice read..

I had a cayenne (just the S) and "upgraded" :D to the SRT8

Never looked back :D;)

^^^SOMBODY GET THIS MAN A BEER!. ;)^^^

^^^SOMBODY GET THIS MAN A BEER!. ;)^^^

i think he needs two... now that he gained a penis...

i think he needs two... now that he gained a penis...

^^^SOMBODY GET THIS MAN A BEER!. ;)^^^

an ice cold beer sounds pretty damn good right now :D

oh, and lets not get started on the penis smack-talk :rolleyes: for the sake of keeping this forum as kickass as it is

haha my bad :) i had to get the jab in there though!

haha my bad :) i had to get the jab in there though!

haha its all good, its tough to avoid I know :D

Meh. A simple tune or CAI and we got it. :p It looks like after 60, it takes a lead. But not by much!

Look at Gene on top of his game. Good looking out, guy. ;)

102mph To 105mph In The 1/4 Mile For 94k More, Not Worth It, With Just A Few Cheap Mods That Jeep Would Rape That Cayenne :-)

It's not all about trapping. ;) See sig!

These are my favorite comments :D

*Uh, have you ever been next to, or behind one of these Jeep SRTs on a full throttle launch? Between those exhaust pipes and the 6.1L engine breathing fire, it could just about wake the dead.*

*Acceleration Comments: An unreal launch that fels like a freeway rear-ender! Zero slop of delay as I let off the brake. Upshifts are very quick yet not particularly harsh. The size of the Jeep and how quickly it accelerates felt at odds. It shouldn't do this, but it does.*

It's not all about trapping. ;) See sig!

+1

THIS MUST BE A JOKE. As mentioned, the pic is horrendous lol, BUT THE KICKER IS THE STATS. The Jeep is slightly quiker and handles much better than they claim!

The Jeep firstly brakes better than they have recorded (not sure on the double figs), (see other tests) and pulls much more than .84 G's in the pad. SO either this Jeep was BROKEN lol, or they just trimmed some of the handling aspects down to give the Cayenne SOME KIND of advantage lol.

As we know though, the only advantage the Porsche has performance wise is HP ans pulls harder form say 70mph to the top. It also handles about the same under daily speeds, but BETTER AS SPEED INCREASES. But the Jeep is certainly better than .84 Gs as it actually should be around .90-.92 G;'s as tested by a million other groups. So yes, this is WRONG lol, nice post though ;)

Sweet read...tahnks for posting...even though they favor the Porsche

these idiots cant drive, everytime they test a mopar vehicle they get by far the slowest numbers around. i think they posted a 13.8 for a charger or challenger srt8.


anyways this is hardly apples to apples. this 07 (which i believe one guy there owns) has god knows how many miles on it and is obviously not going to grip and brake as well as a showroom new vehicle such as the porsche. granted it would be broken in and likely quicker (depending on how its been taken care of) but they cracked off a 13.4 which is utter garbage. most mags have us at 13.2 and its well known these rigs are capable of 13 flat with even a few breaking into the 12s. i cant recall seeing skidpad figures of less than .87 posted for us either.

worthless test. i would be surprised if they even tested them on the same day. im looking forward for a real magazine to do a ctt-s, x5-m. rr sc, ml63, gc srt8 comparison test.

I love my jeep but I think claims that a stocker will run in the low 13s are a stretch. I ran mine for the first time last night on a very hot evening (90 degrees) and did a 13.7. Adjusted, that's about a 13.5.

There was another one there, also completely stock and he was about 1/10th slower than me. Based on reliable tests I've seen, 13.4-13.6 is about right for a stocker. Add a CAI and a tune and low 13s or with luck even high 12s are possible.

What about ours versus the Cayenne GTS?

I see the Cayenne has a "1ft-Rollout" on 0-60, WTF is a 1ft-rollout?

Now why'd they do the '07 vs. '09 and not an '08/'09 jeep?

Strange, well nice find Dave, that was an interesting read.

Now why'd they do the '07 vs. '09 and not an '08/'09 jeep?

Strange, well nice find Dave, that was an interesting read.

08/09 are faster ?

Because the 07 is the fastest year...:-)

Because the 07 is the fastest year...:-)

That's almost funny!

I see the Cayenne has a "1ft-Rollout" on 0-60, WTF is a 1ft-rollout?

These magazines use GPS based testing equiptment to get their performance numbers. Acurate but not the same thing as a real dragstrip which uses different methods to get your 1/4 time. There is a 1ft rollout at the drag strip and trap speeds are averaged over the last 66ft (I believe...would have to look up to be sure)...

Essentially the times will never match between the two methods because they are so different. Some magazines try to 'correct' their times to give you a closer idea of what a real dragstrip would display but often I find their methods to be broken. A lot of times are also 'corrected' for conditions as well so a track pass at 2000DA can't be compared to a 'converted' GPS testing where they corrected the time to 0DA.

I love my jeep but I think claims that a stocker will run in the low 13s are a stretch. I ran mine for the first time last night on a very hot evening (90 degrees) and did a 13.7. Adjusted, that's about a 13.5.

There was another one there, also completely stock and he was about 1/10th slower than me. Based on reliable tests I've seen, 13.4-13.6 is about right for a stocker. Add a CAI and a tune and low 13s or with luck even high 12s are possible.

Negatory nightrider. C and d road and track and autoweek all clocked 13.2s or 13.3. Many stockers have matched and bettered these times in cold air with a couple cracking off 12.8s.

Why is it that all them picture the srt8 is up against is that we are in the back.... Why do they even take pictures like that when we have the better car... No offense on the Cayenne... :D:D:D:D

I see the Cayenne has a "1ft-Rollout" on 0-60, WTF is a 1ft-rollout?

The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process - (edomunds.com)

Negatory nightrider. C and d road and track and autoweek all clocked 13.2s or 13.3. Many stockers have matched and bettered these times in cold air with a couple cracking off 12.8s.

+1... with a 2000(ish)da i still hit a 13.1 with a CAI...

The term "rollout" might not be familiar, but it comes from the drag strip. The arrangement of the timing beams for drag racing can be confusing, primarily because the 7-inch separation between the "pre-stage" and "stage" beams is not the source of rollout. The pre-stage beam, which has no effect on timing, is only there to help drivers creep up to the starting position. Rollout comes from the 1-foot separation (11.5 inches, actually) between the point where the leading edge of a front tire "rolls in" to the final staging beam — triggering the countdown to the green light that starts the race — and the point where the trailing edge of that tire "rolls out" of that same beam, the triggering event that starts the clock. A driver skilled at "shallow staging" can therefore get almost a free foot of untimed acceleration before the clock officially starts, effectively achieving a rolling-start velocity of 3-5 mph and shaving the 0.3 second it typically takes to cover that distance off his elapsed time (ET) in the process - (edomunds.com)


Yeah, rollout is something that US auto mags use, which is usually why they're 'faster' in their times than us, or int'l pubs that also use GPS equipment instead of a drag strip. For a vehicle as fast as the Jeep, with such an explosive launch, it could easily make the times .3-.4 seconds faster to 60 than without applying rollout. That's why we started publishing 'with' and 'without' rollout - which of course we did after we ran the Jeep through the tests, so you could take off .3 sec to get the 'without' number, making the 0-60 time 4.4s, which is in line with the other pubs.

I agree that the 1/4 mile time looks a little slow, but based on the as-tested date of the Jeep (9/10/2007) it was probably scorching at the track and from my personal experience with two vehicles, the 6.1L's top-end suffers a bit in heat, especially after repeated runs. (no thermostat mods are done to stock press cars, which would have helped in this case)

Other testing factors include, altitude, track conditions, vehicle mileage, tire condition (a big one for non-AWD vehicles) and whether or not vehicles with auto trans have software that prevent brake torquing, which seems to be happening a lot lately on the newer cars.

From a totally stock standpoint, the Porsche is slightly faster in the end, just like the ML63 AMG is - based on more HP, way more torque in the case of the Cayenne, and an additional gear for the Porsche and 2 more for the ML. Their aerodynamics help too, as we all know the Jeep turns into a bit of a brick over 100mph. But the Jeep is faster to 60 than both, and generally faster in the 1/4 mi than both, too. And while the MB is limited to 155mph and the Porsche 167, the Jeep will do 170ish before it runs out of RPMs, so it'll end up winning the race given enough pavement. I'm surprised those guys in Dubai haven't done a top end test since the roads there are endless and perfectly flat.

Any way you look at it, you'd be a fool not to see the potential of the Jeep based on its stock numbers, absolutely amazing price point/value, and availability of aftermarket mods. That's why I bought one, and at least three others at Edmunds own or have owned one too.


-Matt