: SRT-8 Jeep GC > TB SS.....by a long shot! (Edmunds review)



Blackout
12-06-05, 02:38 PM
Well This fight was over before it started! Here ya go
Edmunds tests the Chevy Trailblazer SS (http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000177071156/)
Posted Dec 6, 2005, 9:30 AM ET by Eric Bryant
http://common.weblogsinc.com/common/images/7154052284105827.jpg?0.5456627427955628 (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108306) With all the negative news surrounding SUVs and General Motors, this probably wasnít the year to introduce the Trailblazer SS. Too bad, since on paper its appears to be a competent piece of equipment, and Edmundís instrumented testing validates that observation. Acceleration for their two-wheel-drive test vehicle was decent with a 6.3-second 0-60 time and a quarter-mile pass of 14.35@96.33. :histeric: Yes, that will probably result in a severe trouncing by the Grand Cherokee SRT-8, but those looking to cross the finish line first can certainly figure out how to parlay the Trailblazerís sticker price advantage and the very healthy LS1/LS2 aftermarket into a winning combination.
Continue reading ďEdmunds tests the Chevy Trailblazer SSĒ (http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000177071156/)
Read (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108306) http://www.autoblog.com/common/media/new-window-autoblog.gif (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Followup/articleId=108306)

Blackout
12-07-05, 09:21 AM
Bump!

90Brougham350
12-07-05, 10:54 AM
So the STS-V comes up short against the competition, and how the TB SS. Keep 'em coming GM!

Randy_W
12-07-05, 11:50 AM
Edmunds tests are notoriously slow compared to others and they didn't test the Jeep. So until we have like tests at the same time by the same people, we won't know jack.:thumbsup:

Katshot
12-07-05, 12:07 PM
Edmunds tests are notoriously slow compared to others and they didn't test the Jeep. So until we have like tests at the same time by the same people, we won't know jack.:thumbsup:

Just for S&G's I took a look at the Edmonds site. Their times ARE a little on the slow side compared to what I would call real-world capable times but they are pretty close to what I've seen in car magzines on the vehicles I looked at. Case in point, they tested the CTS-V and gave it a 5.1sec. 0-60 and a 13.5sec. 1/4 mile. I know the car is capable of better but those numbers ARE similar to what I've read in some magazines. Bottom line, I would agree that until tey actually test the Jeep, it's speculation at best. I really don't use Edmonds much, I guess I should. They look like they have a much better site than they used to. Personally, I'll be looking forward to a side by side test. THAT's when the numbers are the most reliable IMO. Tested not only by the same people but on the same day and the same track.

Randy_W
12-07-05, 12:29 PM
Kat, I agree, I also believe the Jeep will be slightly quicker, but I think the times in this test are way slow.

Katshot
12-07-05, 01:08 PM
Me too. When I first read it, I was surprised.

Blackout
12-07-05, 02:32 PM
Well Jeep is claiming the following numbers for the SRT-8 Jeep
0-60 mph in under 5 seconds. Quicker then a BMW X5 and a Porsche Cayenne Turbo
0-100-0 mph in the low 19 second range
60-0 mph in 125 ft.

The SRT boys increased the engine's compression ratio to 10.3:1 from 9.6:1

So far when it has come to the SRT vehicles they have been dead on if not playing it conservativly with their performance numbers

Randy_W
12-07-05, 02:36 PM
Chevy is usually conservative with their claims and they are claiming 5.7 for the SS. They claimed 3.9 for the Z06 and they will go anywhere from 3.4-3.7. It just looks like the Edmunds number is slow to me.

Blackout
12-07-05, 02:39 PM
Chevy is usually conservative with their claims and they are claiming 5.7 for the SS. They claimed 3.9 for the Z06 and they will go anywhere from 3.4-3.7. It just looks like the Edmunds number is slow to me.I could see there being a difference in performance numbers when it comes to a car with a stick shift. But when it comes to an automatic there just isn't that same issue with performance since all you have to do is mash the gas pedal. But the one thing I thougth was interesting is that the SRT-8 Jeep will be 4WD. Does the TB SS have/offer 4WD?

Katshot
12-07-05, 02:46 PM
4WD huh? That will be the first 4WD SRT won't it? I mean I know both the 300C and Magnum are available with AWD but their SRT variants only come in RWD right?

Blackout
12-07-05, 03:18 PM
4WD huh? That will be the first 4WD SRT won't it? I mean I know both the 300C and Magnum are available with AWD but their SRT variants only come in RWD right?The SRT-8 Jeep will be the first 4WD vehicle from the SRT camp. As far as the 300C and Magnum I believe the SRT versions are only available in RWD. To find out more about the SRT vehicles check this out: http://www.drivesrt.com/en/srt_vehicles.html

Randy_W
12-07-05, 05:35 PM
I could see there being a difference in performance numbers when it comes to a car with a stick shift. But when it comes to an automatic there just isn't that same issue with performance since all you have to do is mash the gas pedal. But the one thing I thougth was interesting is that the SRT-8 Jeep will be 4WD. Does the TB SS have/offer 4WD?

Yes, the SS is offered in 2wd and awd.

Playdrv4me
12-07-05, 05:52 PM
One nice thing about the SS is that in the tradition of the classic "SS" package, it really IS an option package on any trim level of Trailblazer. This works out well too because Insurance-wise alot of companies will still treat it as a breand and butter Trailblazer.

urbanski
12-08-05, 06:53 PM
Chevy is usually conservative with their claims and they are claiming 5.7 for the SS. They claimed 3.9 for the Z06 and they will go anywhere from 3.4-3.7. It just looks like the Edmunds number is slow to me.
nobody with my car has ever EVER gotten anywhere near the 4.6 GM claimed. my best is 5.2, with 500hp

Sandy
12-08-05, 07:13 PM
Somehow, I think the all wheel drive version of the SS would be faster than the rear wheel drive only version >>> Yes? or, No?

Blackout
12-08-05, 08:20 PM
I would say no. Reasons being more power loss through the drivetrain and more weight to the vehicle

Randy_W
12-08-05, 08:32 PM
nobody with my car has ever EVER gotten anywhere near the 4.6 GM claimed. my best is 5.2, with 500hp

No offense, but there's either driver error or you don't have close to 500 h.p.

Blackout
12-08-05, 09:15 PM
Wheel hop issue? Or maybe your launches aren't that good, etc. There are many factors that could be messing up your 0-60's but adding more power to the car doesn't make it any easier

Caddy Man
12-08-05, 09:49 PM
I have not read any auto magazine tests where the CTS V did the 0-60 in 4.6 seconds like GM claims. If you know of a test where the CTS Vdid come in under 5 seconds in the 0-60, tell me which one, because as a reader of Motor Trend and Automobile Magazine, I havent seen it.

Katshot
12-08-05, 09:52 PM
No offense, but there's either driver error or you don't have close to 500 h.p.

I have to agree with Randy on this one.

DarkKnight
01-01-06, 03:05 AM
http://www.wkjeeps.com/wk_srt8.htm

And go fast parts can be found here: http://www.gsmotorsports.com/