Car and Driver Test Results 2012 vs 2010

[WRX-7]

Road Test of the 2012 SRT8 Jeep in the Sept issue of C&D compared to the 2010 in the Jan. 2010 issue.

.........2012 .........2010
0-60: 4.7 ............ 4.4
0-100: 12.3 ......... 11.8
0-130: 24.4 ......... 23.1

1/4: 13.4@104 ... 13.2@104

Skidpad: .85g ...... .87g

70-0: 166ft ......... 176ft

Top speed: 157 .... 155


:popcorn:

[Scottina06]

very interesting

[jeep2011]

I find it hard to believe on the skidpad the WKII pulls less g's. Chrysler rates it at .90

[soontobesrt]

Cool comparo. But until they go at it side by side I dont read too far into this ;)

Those reviews vary so much and there are also a lot of politics involved with those reviews and the magz. The top speeds are always limited to "155" but thats not real deal, little tune and its well beyond that. And Im pretty sure the skidpad #s are as well because the WK SRT put down .9Gs on pad. Cool link tho :)

[Scottina06]

so they tested one in 2010 and the 2012 just recently? Thats lame. The conditions could be the exact opposite........

Lame test

[soontobesrt]

so they tested one in 2010 and the 2012 just recently? Thats lame. The conditions could be the exact opposite........

Lame test
Yeah :rolleyes: This wasnt a side by side same day type test, this is just what a 2010 put down in 2010 and the new one put down recentley "ACCORDING TO C&D" :lol:

[Red G8R]

so they tested one in 2010 and the 2012 just recently? Thats lame. The conditions could be the exact opposite........

Lame test

That's why times are corrected for altitude and temperature so that comparisons can be made.

But you're all right that the best comparisons are side by side. Then again, they're slight variances between the same models.

[jeep2011]

Not only does it have to do with the current conditions, but also the driver. No driver is the same....getting the quickest time isn't just about slamming the pedal to the floor, every car has a sweet spot that most people do not know how to hit.

[Yaccster]

Road Test of the 2012 SRT8 Jeep in the Sept issue of C&D compared to the 2010 in the Jan. 2010 issue.

.........2012 .........2010
0-60: 4.7 ............ 4.4
0-100: 12.3 ......... 11.8
0-130: 24.4 ......... 23.1

1/4: 13.4@104 ... 13.2@104

Skidpad: .85g ...... .87g

70-0: 166ft ......... 176ft

Top speed: 157 .... 155


In the C&D's first Test of the WK SRT/8 the 2006 was compared to the Trailblazer SS and 'lost'.

The numbers back then were slightly different than the '10 but still better than the new WK2's latest test (except braking):

0-60: 4.5
0-100: 12.0
0-130: 24.0
1/4: 13.2 @104

300ft Skidpad: .88g
70-0: 178ft
Top Speed: 155 (mfr est)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/06q1/2006_jeep_grand_cherokee_srt8_vs._chevrolet_trailb lazer_ss-comparison_tests

[5point9]

I'm amazed at how close the new one is to the old one. It's so heavy!

[Scottina06]

There's better times for the 2012......I've seen them

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[mlarco52]

Better times for the 2012 than the 4.7 0-60 and 13.4 1/4 mile? Hmm wanna fill us in? Lol.

[kokanee13]

Guys, we all know the new Jeep is slower. Let's move on. It's bigger, heavier, what did you think was going to happen? Can't cheat physics.I bet it rides nice though.

[Milous]

In the C&D's first Test of the WK SRT/8 the 2006 was compared to the Trailblazer SS and 'lost'.
The Jeep "lost" the C&D "test" because of towing capability and a couple of other minor things, yet they listed far more drawbacks for the TBSS. What a bogus article.

On the track the Jeep absolutely wasted the Trailblazer (by more than 1 second 0-60 and by 2.6 seconds 0-100!).

[hound]

So the new one is now as fast as the TBSS?? :)

[rusty104]

The Jeep "lost" the C&D "test" because of towing capability and a couple of other minor things, yet they listed far more drawbacks for the TBSS. What a bogus article.

On the track the Jeep absolutely wasted the Trailblazer (by more than 1 second 0-60 and by 2.6 seconds 0-100!).

In a comparison with a Rover they also complained about the low grade interior and lack of rear seat room. Now that both have been addressed they grouse about the SRT not being too nice and not "raw" enough. Figure it out guys which is it?

[moosehead]

Soooooo, now I gotta find a way to get the 2012 SRT8 engine, hood, front seats, carbon fiber trim, steering wheel, and Brembos swapped into my WK2 or a 2010 SRT8.

Any takers?

[Scottina06]

Better times for the 2012 than the 4.7 0-60 and 13.4 1/4 mile? Hmm wanna fill us in? Lol.


yes



If you do a little research...the gen1 SRT8 varied so much in tests and track runs it wasnt even funny. Ive seen the gen1 run 14.0 in the 1/4. But as I quoted a month or so ago I was told and saw from an excellent source...the 2012 ran under 13.0

[QuickOne]

Here are my first 4 runs on my 2010 SRT8 with about 6,000 miles.
These were done Bone Stock and also done with a Predator CAI 91 tune. No difference.
13.3 consistently, Speed at 1/4 mile is 101 mph consistently.
Everything I have seen on WK2 SRT8 has it a bit quicker and faster through the traps.
These times above were also done in negative DA.
The only real and true test is a Stock WK1 with more than 10K miles on it, vs a WK2 with more than 10K miles on it run at the same time, same track and then switching lanes.
Since I don't see this ever happening, especially with getting driver weight the same, fuel levels the same and both jeeps their with engines fully broken in.
However, by my numbers, vs the C&D numbers, this WK2 is faster than my 2010 stock SRT8.:thumbsup:

[Yaccster]

Here are my first 4 runs on my 2012 SRT8 with about 6,000 miles.

When did you get a '12?

[Scottina06]

LOL....I think he meant 2010

[QuickOne]

When did you get a '12?
I don't get it?







Just kidding. Fixed it. Didn't proof read obviously. :rolleyes:

[Yaccster]

The Jeep "lost" the C&D "test" because of towing capability and a couple of other minor things, yet they listed far more drawbacks for the TBSS. What a bogus article.

On the track the Jeep absolutely wasted the Trailblazer (by more than 1 second 0-60 and by 2.6 seconds 0-100!).

I don't think you'll find anyone here that will disagree with that, but it's 5 years later. When it came out it was pretty much the only review and it was disappointing. Looking back it's kind of funny how wrong they got it.

[Yaccster]

I don't get it?







Just kidding. Fixed it. Didn't proof read obviously. :rolleyes:



Yeah, I was just being a jerk.