2018 Dodge Durango SRT To Begin At $64,090

 AWESOME  

This is what GM needs to be doing to select CUV/SUVs. For the last Hurrah, I think the General needs to throw some flash!

Think of a TTV6 in the Chevrolet Equinox or GMC Terrain. 6.2L V8 in the Chevrolet Traverse or GMC Acadia.  

Love the expanded pics and AWD burn out on the web site.

https://www.dodge.com/durango/srt.html

I will say that I do miss the days when you could order a plain jane auto with the baddest motor around and just have a blast. 

Wonder what the price difference would be for a basic Durango with the SRT Powertrain and Brembo brake package. I bet you could drop considerable money off that $64K plus price.

Configurator has some interesting options. Love all the color match rims you can do especially if you want a nice contrast rim color. One of the better option choices I have seen. I will say that Dodge Durango and Jeep GC are hitting it solid.

OK, just played with both the Jeep GC SRT configurator versus the Durango RT configurator. Both have the same 475HP Hemi engine. I actually get far more auto with the Durango. Durango wins this round. Course the SRT Looses out to the Trackhawk Jeep GC. be interesting to see how they price the two. Yes the Jeep GC has the Supercharged Hemi. but still gonna be interesting.

Way too much coin (yes I'm a cheapskate) but a damn nice ride. 

Bummer, just spent considerable time on both Chevrolet and GMC web sites looking at both Terrain / Acadia and Equinox / Traverse and hate the color options, hate the chrome and some of the options add/delete make no sense. Perfect example is you choose the external protection package which is mud flaps, side external step and roof rails, then choose the internal protection package and they want to remove the external protection package. Makes NO SENSE. Very disappointed in GM right now for crazy chrome bling everything and packages that should not affect each other being force to remove and pick one over the other. RIght now Jeep and Dodge are hitting it far better. 

3 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Way too much coin (yes I'm a cheapskate) but a damn nice ride. 

Wait a year or two and you can pick one up for half price with ultra low miles.  

9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Bummer, just spent considerable time on both Chevrolet and GMC web sites looking at both Terrain / Acadia and Equinox / Traverse and hate the color options, hate the chrome and some of the options add/delete make no sense. Perfect example is you choose the external protection package which is mud flaps, side external step and roof rails, then choose the internal protection package and they want to remove the external protection package. Makes NO SENSE. Very disappointed in GM right now for crazy chrome bling everything and packages that should not affect each other being force to remove and pick one over the other. RIght now Jeep and Dodge are hitting it far better. 

Wait a year or two and you can pick one up for half price with ultra low miles.  

Exactly. 

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

 AWESOME  

This is what GM needs to be doing to select CUV/SUVs. For the last Hurrah, I think the General needs to throw some flash!

Think of a TTV6 in the Chevrolet Equinox or GMC Terrain. 6.2L V8 in the Chevrolet Traverse or GMC Acadia.  

Love the expanded pics and AWD burn out on the web site.

https://www.dodge.com/durango/srt.html

I will say that I do miss the days when you could order a plain jane auto with the baddest motor around and just have a blast. 

Wonder what the price difference would be for a basic Durango with the SRT Powertrain and Brembo brake package. I bet you could drop considerable money off that $64K plus price.

Ohhh absolutely....Were I to be in the amrket, this powertrain in this vehicle....not normally a Durango fan, but I would personally rock this all day long!

41 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Way too much coin (yes I'm a cheapskate) but a damn nice ride. 

Fortunately, I agree with dfelt...used amrket!

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

OK, just played with both the Jeep GC SRT configurator versus the Durango RT configurator. Both have the same 475HP Hemi engine. I actually get far more auto with the Durango. Durango wins this round. Course the SRT Looses out to the Trackhawk Jeep GC. be interesting to see how they price the two. Yes the Jeep GC has the Supercharged Hemi. but still gonna be interesting.

It almost seems as if the funky nature of the old dodge/Plymouth/Chrysler lives on in Jeep.  I have a crab apple tree in my side yard that has a root graft...the original root stock shows its unhappiness by sending up suckers and trying to assert its rightful nature.

The Ghost of the old (good) chryco is trying to assert itself through Jeep.

It isn't the fastest or most powerful 3 row SUV sold in America, maybe the fastest build by FCA, Ford or GM.  But there are 3 row European SUVs that are faster.  

But this is the FCA playbook, take old dated product, drop a big engine in and hope it stirs enough excitement to get people into dealerships, then dish out the $10,000 rebates to move metal.

And agreed that in a couple years these will be half the price on the used market.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

It isn't the fastest or most powerful 3 row SUV sold in America, maybe the fastest build by FCA, Ford or GM.  But there are 3 row European SUVs that are faster.  

But this is the FCA playbook, take old dated product, drop a big engine in and hope it stirs enough excitement to get people into dealerships, then dish out the $10,000 rebates to move metal.

And agreed that in a couple years these will be half the price on the used market.

FCA playbook indeed...Sergio wants Alfa to grow!

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

It isn't the fastest or most powerful 3 row SUV sold in America, maybe the fastest build by FCA, Ford or GM.  But there are 3 row European SUVs that are faster.  

But this is the FCA playbook, take old dated product, drop a big engine in and hope it stirs enough excitement to get people into dealerships, then dish out the $10,000 rebates to move metal.

And agreed that in a couple years these will be half the price on the used market.

"Old dated product"

You mean like the G Wagon? ( and yes I know there is a new one coming out after forty years but my point stands)

This also undercuts those you speak of by tens of thousands of dollars (in most cases). 

58 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

"Old dated product"

 

You mean like the G Wagon? ( and yes I know there is a new one coming out after forty years but my point stands)

 

This also undercuts those you speak of by tens of thousands of dollars (in most cases). 

And this is the rub...it would cost me 140 thousand dollars to buy a nicely equipped Benz like the one I posted up in the morning in the Dream Car Garage Ultimate Luxury edition.

In real world terms, I can buy a perfectly fun car for 25 to 35 grand...

Saving a hundred and ten grand per car ads up after awhile.

But I do want to see FCA invest in domestic brand names. SMK is not incorrect in what he is saying.

My 24 year old sons 23 year old Girlfriend wants a G wagon sooooo badly...

Like Balthazar said, sometimes it is more about desirability.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

"Old dated product"

 

You mean like the G Wagon? ( and yes I know there is a new one coming out after forty years but my point stands)

 

This also undercuts those you speak of by tens of thousands of dollars (in most cases). 

G-wagen is one product, and they left it like that because that is what the people buying it want.   The rest of their line is pretty fresh.  FCA is still selling cars based off a 90s E-class.   Their newest engine is the Pentastar V6 which came out 7 years ago.  The Hemi in these SRT's and in the 5.7 liter form are over 10 years old.

And in a way Sergio is smart for doing it.  If he starves Dodge and Chrysler of new product, he milks the current stuff for every last dollar without spending any money, and in time he can kill one model after another, until nothing is left. Then he can finally get his merger with someone else because he sees Jeep and Alfa as his merger bait.

Same reason GM left the W-Body Impala 'like that so long' - because the people buying it wanted it that way.

1 minute ago, balthazar said:

Same reason GM left the W-Body Impala 'like that so long' - because the people buying it wanted it that way.

Hertz and the other rental companies anyway.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

"Old dated product"

 

You mean like the G Wagon? ( and yes I know there is a new one coming out after forty years but my point stands)

 

This also undercuts those you speak of by tens of thousands of dollars (in most cases). 

Both the Durango and Grand Cherokee have been in nearly constant refresh since they debuted. Every year there is a change to keep them up to date. They just got the updated Pentastar last year. The 8 speed auto 2 years prior along with an interior refresh. Updated suspension for the R/T model.

These are still excellent SUVs that sit in a niche that no other manufacturer occupies.  They are the only SUVs in the segment with V8s and they have by far the highest tow ratings of non-truck passenger vehicles this side of a Suburban. They're comfortable, fast, handle well, and get surprisingly good mpg for their size.

36 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Both the Durango and Grand Cherokee have been in nearly constant refresh since they debuted. Every year there is a change to keep them up to date. They just got the updated Pentastar last year. The 8 speed auto 2 years prior along with an interior refresh. Updated suspension for the R/T model.

These are still excellent SUVs that sit in a niche that no other manufacturer occupies.  They are the only SUVs in the segment with V8s and they have by far the highest tow ratings of non-truck passenger vehicles this side of a Suburban. They're comfortable, fast, handle well, and get surprisingly good mpg for their size.

Once again the voice of reason.

Sorry @surreal1272 I meant to quote @smk4565.

@smk4565 the Pentastar is majorly redesigned for 2016. It has always been an excellent V6 in the class. If it is performing it's job correctly, who cares how old the original design is?

16 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Sorry @surreal1272 I meant to quote @smk4565.

@smk4565 the Pentastar is majorly redesigned for 2016. It has always been an excellent V6 in the class. If it is performing it's job correctly, who cares how old the original design is?

 

Kind of Ironic because I have a childhood memory of people trying to kill a 1960s era slant six by draining the oil and running it dry.  That thing ran for a good long time before it sized up.

And as a teenager I knew quite a few Indiana farmers who swore by the slant six.

Cool that all these years later they still build an awesome six!

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Sorry @surreal1272 I meant to quote @smk4565.

@smk4565 the Pentastar is majorly redesigned for 2016. It has always been an excellent V6 in the class. If it is performing it's job correctly, who cares how old the original design is?

 

I've driven a 300 with the Pentastar, wasn't impressed.  I'd take a Honda or Infiniti V6 over it, and the GM 3.6, and maybe the Pentastar is as good as the 3.5 V6 Ford had in the old MKZ.  

Here's another problem though, the Pentastar V6 still has to be used in a lot of cars who's competitors have turbo 4's making similar torque with better MPG.  Even in their own company, the Alfa Romeo 4 cylinder gets better mileage with more torque.

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I've driven a 300 with the Pentastar, wasn't impressed.  I'd take a Honda or Infiniti V6 over it, and the GM 3.6, and maybe the Pentastar is as good as the 3.5 V6 Ford had in the old MKZ.  

Here's another problem though, the Pentastar V6 still has to be used in a lot of cars who's competitors have turbo 4's making similar torque with better MPG.  Even in their own company, the Alfa Romeo 4 cylinder gets better mileage with more torque.

I drove a 300 with a Pentastar and it blew me away in a good sort of way.  Not even on the same planet as the Ford 3.5.

Also, in all honesty have you ever met a Domestic car you liked?  Not sure the problem is the cars and trucks...

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

I've driven a 300 with the Pentastar, wasn't impressed.  I'd take a Honda or Infiniti V6 over it, and the GM 3.6, and maybe the Pentastar is as good as the 3.5 V6 Ford had in the old MKZ.  

Here's another problem though, the Pentastar V6 still has to be used in a lot of cars who's competitors have turbo 4's making similar torque with better MPG.  Even in their own company, the Alfa Romeo 4 cylinder gets better mileage with more torque.

I am so done with the full boost torque thing from you. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT GETS MORE TORQUE IF YOU HAVE TO USE FULL BOOST TO GET IT!

Take the turbo away from a 2.0T for a moment.... what are you driving?  A 2 liter 4-cylinder.  At partial throttle with a couple PSI boost... maybe you're driving the equivalent of a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder. It's only under absolute full throttle and boost that you ever get to those V6 torque numbers.

When you're driving a 3.6, you're driving a 3.6. The Pentastar and the GM 3.6 can both shut down 2 cylinders and run as a 4-cylinder.  Those spare cylinders can power back up faster than any turbo. It takes no more than 2 revolutions of the crank. 

In normal driving, a bigger displacement engine that produces torque sooner (without lag) at a lower RPM is more desireable than something one needs to mash the throttle to get it moving.  The heavier the car, the more this is true. 

8/9/10 speed automatics don't help all that much either... they take away some of the downsides of turbos, but there is still more steps:  1. Press throttle. 2 downshift to allow engine RPM to raise. 3. Spool up turbo.... wait.... wait.... wait...... . 4. Go

I like the looks of the new Traverse and I think in the V6 model it will be a decent, if a bit uninspiring, drive.  However, no lie, the first thought that crossed my mind when I heard the base model was coming with the 2.0T was "That is going to be the most un-fun vehicle to drive of 2018."  But sure.. it has "the same torque as the V6".  People are going to be so into the boost that they'll ruin any gain in fuel economy.  It's happened with Hyundai, it's happened with Ford, and it will happen in the Traverse.

When I drive... I like 2 steps:

1. Press throttle

2. 

37 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I drove a 300 with a Pentastar and it blew me away in a good sort of way.  Not even on the same planet as the Ford 3.5.

Also, in all honesty have you ever met a Domestic car you liked?  Not sure the problem is the cars and trucks...

Yes, the Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0 that I drove for 10 years.

13 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Yes, the Oldsmobile Aurora 4.0 that I drove for 10 years.

Awesome!  I did not mean that question as a threat.  Actually enjoying your enthusiasm for Benz and am attempting to learn more about Mercedes.

Never realized how many we had on the road until I started looking around here in Columbus.

27 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I am so done with the full boost torque thing from you. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT GETS MORE TORQUE IF YOU HAVE TO USE FULL BOOST TO GET IT!

Take the turbo away from a 2.0T for a moment.... what are you driving?  A 2 liter 4-cylinder.  At partial throttle with a couple PSI boost... maybe you're driving the equivalent of a 2.5 liter 4-cylinder. It's only under absolute full throttle and boost that you ever get to those V6 torque numbers.

When you're driving a 3.6, you're driving a 3.6. The Pentastar and the GM 3.6 can both shut down 2 cylinders and run as a 4-cylinder.  Those spare cylinders can power back up faster than any turbo. It takes no more than 2 revolutions of the crank. 

In normal driving, a bigger displacement engine that produces torque sooner (without lag) at a lower RPM is more desireable than something one needs to mash the throttle to get it moving.  The heavier the car, the more this is true. 

8/9/10 speed automatics don't help all that much either... they take away some of the downsides of turbos, but there is still more steps:  1. Press throttle. 2 downshift to allow engine RPM to raise. 3. Spool up turbo.... wait.... wait.... wait...... . 4. Go

I like the looks of the new Traverse and I think in the V6 model it will be a decent, if a bit uninspiring, drive.  However, no lie, the first thought that crossed my mind when I heard the base model was coming with the 2.0T was "That is going to be the most un-fun vehicle to drive of 2018."  But sure.. it has "the same torque as the V6".  People are going to be so into the boost that they'll ruin any gain in fuel economy.  It's happened with Hyundai, it's happened with Ford, and it will happen in the Traverse.

When I drive... I like 2 steps:

1. Press throttle

2. 

But the Pentastar makes peak torque at 4,800 rpm.  How often in normal driving are you at 4,800 rpm?   The Giulia has 306 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm, and most people are always round 2,000 rpm, and accessing full torque.  This is why the 2 liter Giulia can equal a 5.7 liter Hemi V8 Charger/300 0-60.

This will be even more amplified with electric turbos that don't need exhaust pressure to spool up.  The new Mercedes inline six with that can spool the turbo to 70,000 rpm in 0.3 seconds, so that is pretty quick, I doubt the Pentastar can get from 1,000 to 4,800 rpm in .3 seconds.

Just now, A Horse With No Name said:

Awesome!  I did not mean that question as a threat.  Actually enjoying your enthusiasm for Benz and am attempting to learn more about Mercedes.

Never realized how many we had on the road until I started looking around here in Columbus.

I thought the Aurora was a really good car, it had a few thousand dollars in repairs around 100k miles, then was pretty good until I got up around 140-150k miles and it was going to need more work, and just wasn't worth keeping anymore.  Silky smooth V8 in those with ash Northstar get outta my way roar.  It wasn't the most powerful or fastest car, the 0-60 was like 7.4 seconds, but it sounded good.  That car suffered from the 4 speed auto, even if it had a 5 speed auto it would have been a big improvement.  

6 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

But the Pentastar makes peak torque at 4,800 rpm.  How often in normal driving are you at 4,800 rpm?   The Giulia has 306 lb-ft at 2,000 rpm, and most people are always round 2,000 rpm, and accessing full torque.  This is why the 2 liter Giulia can equal a 5.7 liter Hemi V8 Charger/300 0-60.

This will be even more amplified with electric turbos that don't need exhaust pressure to spool up.  The new Mercedes inline six with that can spool the turbo to 70,000 rpm in 0.3 seconds, so that is pretty quick, I doubt the Pentastar can get from 1,000 to 4,800 rpm in .3 seconds.

You still fail. You have completely misunderstood what the torque charts are showing you. Just because an engine is turning 2,000 rpm and has a peak torque rating at that same RPM does not mean the engine is producing that torque. Think about that for a moment.

The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque?

The Giulia only has that torque at full boost which means near to or actual full throttle.  Moving at 45mph at 2,000 rpm the Giulia is not making 306 lb-ft.... it's making whatever a basic, unboosted 2.0 4-cylinder would make... probably no more than 100 lb-ft. When more speed is called for, it needs to downshift, spool up the turbo, and then go.  If it is a manual and you don't downshift, you lug the engine and the turbo lag is even more pronounced. 

So, for those reasons, I don't care where peak torque is because that's only under full throttle... I care what the engine does for me at partial throttle. At partial throttle in a 2.0T, I'm driving a 2 liter.... in a 3.6, I'm driving a 3.6 liter.  You drive a V8... you know the difference I'm talking about. Would you trade your V8 for a less responsive engine that needed to shift more just to provide similar peak output that you rarely use?

The benz is an electronically driven turbo (I would call it a supercharger since it operates independently of exhaust output).  That is entirely different technology than the existing turbos we are discussing. Don't try moving goal posts. 

Still, wow.

40 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

You still fail. You have completely misunderstood what the torque charts are showing you. Just because an engine is turning 2,000 rpm and has a peak torque rating at that same RPM does not mean the engine is producing that torque. Think about that for a moment.

The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque?

The Giulia only has that torque at full boost which means near to or actual full throttle.  Moving at 45mph at 2,000 rpm the Giulia is not making 306 lb-ft.... it's making whatever a basic, unboosted 2.0 4-cylinder would make... probably no more than 100 lb-ft. When more speed is called for, it needs to downshift, spool up the turbo, and then go.  If it is a manual and you don't downshift, you lug the engine and the turbo lag is even more pronounced. 

So, for those reasons, I don't care where peak torque is because that's only under full throttle... I care what the engine does for me at partial throttle. At partial throttle in a 2.0T, I'm driving a 2 liter.... in a 3.6, I'm driving a 3.6 liter.  You drive a V8... you know the difference I'm talking about. Would you trade your V8 for a less responsive engine that needed to shift more just to provide similar peak output that you rarely use?

The benz is an electronically driven turbo (I would call it a supercharger since it operates independently of exhaust output).  That is entirely different technology than the existing turbos we are discussing. Don't try moving goal posts. 

 

I would be fine with trading the V8 for a bi-turbo V6.  An E43 adds about 15 hp to my engine with the same torque, adds about 3 mpg, and the car is quicker.  I wouldn't feel like a need a 5.5 liter engine if a 3.0 turbo can do the job.    That being said I would take a turbo V8 over a turbo V6 also.

I've driven the C300 and GLC300 with the turbo 4 vs the old V6, I think the 2.0T is fine, it doesn't feel stressed or like there isn't enough power, if you put your foot down the turbo kicks in and you get the torque, and the car moves adequately, it doesn't feel laggy.  Maybe the 4 lacks a little refinement of the V6 at higher rpm.  But there is a fuel economy gain to be had too.

I always felt like the Infiniti G37 needed to be revved up to get anything out of it, the CTS 3.6 always felt sluggish to me if it wasn't at 4,000 rpm.  All these V6s should go to turbo, Infiniti has since I last drove one of their cars, but the rest need to.  They can put an Alfa Romeo 2 liter in a Charger, Wrangler, 300, etc and then turbocharge the Pentastar as an upgrade.

That 6.4 liter Hemi in the Durango is so dated it makes less hp and torque than a 2.9 liter V6 from the same company.  And the Hemi has more than twice the displacement!  That is embarrassing.

@smk4565 You seem to be confused between traditional turbo's using exhaust gas and having to spool up and how they have minimized turbo lag usually by the use of a twin scroll turbo and electronic turbo's that are more like a supercharger as Drew states.

Not going to repost everything what is already out on the internet, but some good sources that clearly explain the differences of hp to torque and how turbo's torque is measured at the maximum psi spin can be read here:

https://www.roushperformance.com/blog/2010/12/the-meaning-of-horsepower-and-torque/

Roush has an outstanding easy to understand web page on this.

Not wanting to accept Roush, then read here where 75 different engineers from Executives of various engineering companies to basic engineers explain in nauseating detail about the torque / hp and turbo's affect.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-torque-and-power-in-a-car-in-layman-terms

Love this thread of engineers who also go into details of turbo lag and the affects on torque and hp.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-correlation-difference-between-turbo-lag-and-how-it-affects-torque-and-horsepower-and-in-turn-the-revving-of-the-engine

One of the best clear explanations:

This is also another good how it works on Turbo's:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

G-wagen is one product, and they left it like that because that is what the people buying it want.   The rest of their line is pretty fresh.  FCA is still selling cars based off a 90s E-class.   Their newest engine is the Pentastar V6 which came out 7 years ago.  The Hemi in these SRT's and in the 5.7 liter form are over 10 years old.

And in a way Sergio is smart for doing it.  If he starves Dodge and Chrysler of new product, he milks the current stuff for every last dollar without spending any money, and in time he can kill one model after another, until nothing is left. Then he can finally get his merger with someone else because he sees Jeep and Alfa as his merger bait.

I defer to Drew's post because it covers that perfectly, how off base you are in your original post. 

BTW, the G Wagen is not the only MB example I can give and yes we are full aware of the Daimler hand me downs that trickled into Chrysler/Dodge cars. Daimler sure as hell has no room to talk about letting Chrysler/Dodge cars rot on the vine while they keep their own lineup fresh.

10 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Just because an engine is turning 2,000 rpm and has a peak torque rating at that same RPM does not mean the engine is producing that torque. Think about that for a moment.

The engine can be spinning at 2,000 rpm at both 1/4 throttle and full throttle. In which throttle position do you think the engine is making more torque?

When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures.

With that in mind RE the above question : as TRQ is a byproduct of combustion & mechanical leverage, 2000 RPM is 2000 RPM and it takes X fuel and Y air to spin at 2000. Lessen the fuel supply by 1% and the RPM will fall. IMO and experience, an engine spinning at 2000 steady @ 1/4 throttle and one ripping thru 2000 under WOT on it's way to redline would develop the same TRQ at that RPM/ that split second.

Where there's a very different set of parameters is a NA engine vs. a turbo one, but above I'm talking about a singular engine, as the question states.

12 hours ago, smk4565 said:

I've driven a 300 with the Pentastar, wasn't impressed.  I'd take a Honda or Infiniti V6 over it, and the GM 3.6, and maybe the Pentastar is as good as the 3.5 V6 Ford had in the old MKZ.  

Here's another problem though, the Pentastar V6 still has to be used in a lot of cars who's competitors have turbo 4's making similar torque with better MPG.  Even in their own company, the Alfa Romeo 4 cylinder gets better mileage with more torque.

I have driven it too and it is better than the GM 3.6L and the old Ford 3.5L doesn't compare in any way. The Honda V6 is nice but it restricted to a FWD borefest. The reason it didn't blow you away is because it was missing this on the hood.

I also find it ironic that you bring up smaller motors as being superior yet you harp on and on about Benz and that worthless V12 that gets beat by smaller V8s. Hello there goalposts. I see you have moved again. Try staying a while this time.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

I defer to Drew's post because it covers that perfectly, how off base you are in your original post. 

 

BTW, the G Wagen is not the only MB example I can give and yes we are full aware of the Daimler hand me downs that trickled into Chrysler/Dodge cars. Daimler sure as hell has no room to talk about letting Chrysler/Dodge cars rot on the vine while they keep their own lineup fresh.

Daimler gave them the Crossfire, a Mercedes mechanical twin, they gave them the 5 speed auto for rear drive cars, the Grand Cherokee platform and the LX platform.  Chrysler let that stuff rot since they are still using it 15 years later.  If not for Daimler Chrysler would still be selling front drive Concordes and Stratuses.

1 hour ago, surreal1272 said:

I have driven it too and it is better than the GM 3.6L and the old Ford 3.5L doesn't compare in any way. The Honda V6 is nice but it restricted to a FWD borefest. The reason it didn't blow you away is because it was missing this on the hood.

 

 

 

I also find it ironic that you bring up smaller motors as being superior yet you harp on and on about Benz and that worthless V12 that gets beat by smaller V8s. Hello there goalposts. I see you have moved again. Try staying a while this time.

Getting back to cars for a minute...I love the pentastar with the automatic...

5 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

Daimler gave them the Crossfire, a Mercedes mechanical twin, they gave them the 5 speed auto for rear drive cars, the Grand Cherokee platform and the LX platform.  Chrysler let that stuff rot since they are still using it 15 years later.  If not for Daimler Chrysler would still be selling front drive Concordes and Stratuses.

I think emotionally what you want in a car is for it to be on the bleeding edge of technological development....mentally and emotionally.

I think what I want is for cars to be much more like a figure skater on ice or a ballet dancer-light, nimble quick, responsive...

Unfortunately for both of us, car makers have to live in the real world and build vehicles for the average buyer.  Ford, bless their hearts, kept a dated platform around forever and a day under the Lincoln and Ford Crown Vic...and they made a kings ransom selling those cars long after the development budget had been paid back.

GM did it and does it, Benz does it...it's fine if you want the bleeding edge of technology...but that is unlikely to move an average car buyer...and that is exactly what everyone short of Rolls, McLaren, Lotus, and Ferrari is selling to.

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Daimler gave them the Crossfire, a Mercedes mechanical twin, they gave them the 5 speed auto for rear drive cars, the Grand Cherokee platform and the LX platform.  Chrysler let that stuff rot since they are still using it 15 years later.  If not for Daimler Chrysler would still be selling front drive Concordes and Stratuses.

Yes they did give those dated platforms to Chrysler. Yet if Daimler really cared about those nameplates, they would have shared their latest platforms with them instead to reduce the cost of them and improve all the nameplates. Daimler really did not care about anyone but themselves to get patents and other sources of money to grow the Daimler family only. Daimler FAILED at growing the complete family of products rather than just themselves. Once the abuse was past the point of any benefit for them to dump their own costs and mistakes on they then dumped the brands.  So much for quality leadership.

On topic of Dodge,

Pentastar and the the rest of that powertrain. I will give FCA Kudo's for smoothing out that V6 powertrain as it really moves the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango well. My son loves his Jeep GC with the V6 powertrain.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

Daimler gave them the Crossfire, a Mercedes mechanical twin, they gave them the 5 speed auto for rear drive cars, the Grand Cherokee platform and the LX platform.  Chrysler let that stuff rot since they are still using it 15 years later.  If not for Daimler Chrysler would still be selling front drive Concordes and Stratuses.

Daimler gave them $h!. The Crossfire is a perfect example of this. It was a hand me down from the (at the time) previous gen SLK while the SLK got new bones, powertrains, etc. They did jack $h! to address the ancient engines being used like the POS 2.7L and the 3.5L (a better motor but woefully behind the times). As an eight year owner of an undercover E Class (3.5L Magnum), I know these things for a fact. The half assed the entire Dodge/Chrysler lineup with cheap interiors and very questionable plastic based parts. Daimler was even worse than FCA and that is suing something. 

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Yes they did give those dated platforms to Chrysler. Yet if Daimler really cared about those nameplates, they would have shared their latest platforms with them instead to reduce the cost of them and improve all the nameplates. Daimler really did not care about anyone but themselves to get patents and other sources of money to grow the Daimler family only. Daimler FAILED at growing the complete family of products rather than just themselves. Once the abuse was past the point of any benefit for them to dump their own costs and mistakes on they then dumped the brands.  So much for quality leadership.

On topic of Dodge,

Pentastar and the the rest of that powertrain. I will give FCA Kudo's for smoothing out that C6 powertrain as it really moves the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango well. My son loves his Jeep GC with the V6 powertrain.

My thoughts exactly but anything to excuse the BS Daimler has passed on to others is perfectly okay to some. 

1 hour ago, dfelt said:

Yes they did give those dated platforms to Chrysler. Yet if Daimler really cared about those nameplates, they would have shared their latest platforms with them instead to reduce the cost of them and improve all the nameplates. Daimler really did not care about anyone but themselves to get patents and other sources of money to grow the Daimler family only. Daimler FAILED at growing the complete family of products rather than just themselves. Once the abuse was past the point of any benefit for them to dump their own costs and mistakes on they then dumped the brands.  So much for quality leadership.

On topic of Dodge,

Pentastar and the the rest of that powertrain. I will give FCA Kudo's for smoothing out that C6 powertrain as it really moves the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango well. My son loves his Jeep GC with the V6 powertrain.

As well he should....dollar for dollar the GC is probably the best SUV on the planet.

I love this  Before i would have GC all the way, but this just looks so baddass. 

58 minutes ago, Stew said:

I love this  Before i would have GC all the way, but this just looks so baddass. 

I still like the GC, but would not kick this out of the garage in the least.

5 hours ago, balthazar said:

 

When talking about 'The OEM should take out Engine A and use Engine B because Torque C is more'... we are talking about an engine independent of all other factors that contribute to vehicle performance: transmission, gearing, weight, etc., IE; an engine on a test stand, because we are only comparing power figures.

With that in mind RE the above question : as TRQ is a byproduct of combustion & mechanical leverage, 2000 RPM is 2000 RPM and it takes X fuel and Y air to spin at 2000. Lessen the fuel supply by 1% and the RPM will fall. IMO and experience, an engine spinning at 2000 steady @ 1/4 throttle and one ripping thru 2000 under WOT on it's way to redline would develop the same TRQ at that RPM/ that split second.

Where there's a very different set of parameters is a NA engine vs. a turbo one, but above I'm talking about a singular engine, as the question states.

No, that would be incorrect, especially on turbo engines, which in spite of your disclaimer below, is relevant.

The whole point of the throttle is to regulate the amount of air and fuel gets to the cylinders. Holding steady at 2000 rpm with 1/4 throttle lets less fuel/air into the cylinder, thus less power. Ripping through 2000 rpm at full throttle puts a lot more fuel/air into the cylinder because..well.. the throttle is wide open and allows unrestricted access.  If it's a turbo, then there is also a few extra PSI being pushed into that cylinder.  The net result of that extra fuel/air is more power and an increase in RPM.  Increase the fuel supply by 1% at 2000 rpm and you've increase power output enough to overcome inertia and increase RPM. 

No engine at 1/4 throttle at 2000 rpm is producing what the torque charts from a Dyno run indicate. 

4 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Daimler gave them the Crossfire, a Mercedes mechanical twin, they gave them the 5 speed auto for rear drive cars, the Grand Cherokee platform and the LX platform.  Chrysler let that stuff rot since they are still using it 15 years later.  If not for Daimler Chrysler would still be selling front drive Concordes and Stratuses.

The LX platform today is so far removed from that old E-class that it is not remotely the same platform. In fact, even just the frame itself is not the same as the E-class platform... the platform was an American designed unit that "Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.".  Next you'll tell me that the original CTS was platform shared with an old BMW just because BMW allowed Cadillac to use GM's own transmission in it. 

So, we have rear suspension, seat frames, wiring harness, steering column, and 5-speed auto from an E-class in the 2005 300.

The second generation in 2011 got a whole new wiring harness to deal with electronic shifting and the UConnect system, steering column (gone was the STUPID Mercedes cruise control lever), new seats with 12 way power adjusters, a completely revised suspension setup and a new AWD system.

In 2012, they tossed out the 5-speed auto in favor of the 8-speed on V6 models. The Hemi got the 8-speed in 2015.

So you tell me... what's left of the 2004 E-Class in the 2017 300C?

"Shared components include the rear suspension design, front seat frames, wiring harnesses, steering column, the 5-speed automatic transmission's design and a derivative of the 4Matic all-wheel drive system.".... nothing.

Can I ask a really stupid question...why are we spending two pages and two days complaining about a really nice SUV that will tow almost 9,000 pounds and will also run to 60 in well under 5 seconds and run the quarter in twelve flat?

And people are actually complaining that this doesn't come with a 4 cylinder?

What on earth am I missing?

1 minute ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Can I ask a really stupid question...why are we spending two pages and two days complaining about a really nice SUV that will tow almost 9,000 pounds and will also run to 60 in well under 5 seconds and run the quarter in twelve flat?

And people are actually complaining that this doesn't come with a 4 cylinder?

What on earth am I missing?

No.. some people are saying it could be done with a 4-cylinder... and are incredibly wrong. 

Just now, Drew Dowdell said:

No.. some people are saying it could be done with a 4-cylinder... and are incredibly wrong. 

I suppose I could surface lumber in my woodworking shop with the nail file from my daughters makeup table...just because something could be done doesn't mean that it should be done that way.

Especially in a vehicle that will sell to people who will traditionally want a V8.

First off, Daimler should have never bought Chrysler to begin with.  It was a bad idea and the people who thought it was a good idea got fired and the people in charge now are the ones that got them out of it.

I never said the Durango should have a 4-cylinder, it needs a big engine because it is a big, heavy vehicle.  But Dodge-Chrysler brands as a whole don't have small and medium vehicles or a good 4 cylinder which is the majority of the market.  Even Jeep sales are down this year while crossovers are fire.

8 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

First off, Daimler should have never bought Chrysler to begin with.  It was a bad idea and the people who thought it was a good idea got fired and the people in charge now are the ones that got them out of it.

I never said the Durango should have a 4-cylinder, it needs a big engine because it is a big, heavy vehicle.  But Dodge-Chrysler brands as a whole don't have small and medium vehicles or a good 4 cylinder which is the majority of the market.  Even Jeep sales are down this year while crossovers are fire.

So you first say that Daimler helped out and now you backtrack and say something completely different, only after you got called out on the BS that was Daimler owning Chrysler. They updated nothing and left it to rot. For all of FCAs troubles with the brand (and there are many), they have at least kept the updates coming (like Drew pointed out) while Daimler literally did nothing after initial releases under them. 

38 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

So you first say that Daimler helped out and now you backtrack and say something completely different, only after you got called out on the BS that was Daimler owning Chrysler. They updated nothing and left it to rot. For all of FCAs troubles with the brand (and there are many), they have at least kept the updates coming (like Drew pointed out) while Daimler literally did nothing after initial releases under them. 

No, I said Daimler never should have bought them.  After they did, they did help Chrysler out, but when Jurgen Schrumf or whatever his name was, was let go, and Dieter Zetsche took over, they started to look on how to get out of it, so at that point they weren't going to pump money into Chrysler.  At least they got new products like the Pacifica, Crossfire, 300 into Chrysler.  FCA is taking Chrysler and Dodge down to about 2-3 vehicles each, and they don't have any plants to replace or update the 300/Charger until 2022 I think.  And you know they will lag on autonomous cars and electric cars because that stuff costs money.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

No, I said Daimler never should have bought them.  After they did, they did help Chrysler out, but when Jurgen Schrumf or whatever his name was, was let go, and Dieter Zetsche took over, they started to look on how to get out of it, so at that point they weren't going to pump money into Chrysler.  At least they got new products like the Pacifica, Crossfire, 300 into Chrysler.  FCA is taking Chrysler and Dodge down to about 2-3 vehicles each, and they don't have any plants to replace or update the 300/Charger until 2022 I think.  And you know they will lag on autonomous cars and electric cars because that stuff costs money.

No. You started off by praising them, i.e. your  Crossfire example. Only after getting called out on it, did you change your tune. Oh and Pacifica was $h! and I have already covered the issues with the LX cars. Hell, the POS Intrepid and 300M had better interiors than the Charger/Magnum/300 that replaced them. Again, as a former owner of one of those cars, this is an argument you will not win with me. 

25 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

No. You started off by praising them, i.e. your  Crossfire example. Only after getting called out on it, did you change your tune. Oh and Pacifica was $h! and I have already covered the issues with the LX cars. Hell, the POS Intrepid and 300M had better interiors than the Charger/Magnum/300 that replaced them. Again, as a former owner of one of those cars, this is an argument you will not win with me. 

Never mind also that Chrysler itself has been building rear wheel drive cars since the 1920s.

If they can figure it out in 1927 methinks they could figure out a rear wheel drive platform in 2017, ninety years later.

Concorde was a fine car, I owned one two hundred thousand plus miles of loyal and dependable service.

If anything the Germans hurt Chrysler far more than they helped it.

Argument is won with reason, rationality and evidence. Not holding out much hope from Pittsburgh at the moment.

7 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

No, that would be incorrect, especially on turbo engines, which in spite of your disclaimer below, is relevant.

The whole point of the throttle is to regulate the amount of air and fuel gets to the cylinders. Holding steady at 2000 rpm with 1/4 throttle lets less fuel/air into the cylinder, thus less power. Ripping through 2000 rpm at full throttle puts a lot more fuel/air into the cylinder because..well.. the throttle is wide open and allows unrestricted access.  If it's a turbo, then there is also a few extra PSI being pushed into that cylinder.  The net result of that extra fuel/air is more power and an increase in RPM.  Increase the fuel supply by 1% at 2000 rpm and you've increase power output enough to overcome inertia and increase RPM. 

No engine at 1/4 throttle at 2000 rpm is producing what the torque charts from a Dyno run indicate. 

I'm still in disagreement on this.

A steady fuel air mix that gives 2000 RPMs is set according to engine specs/tune. It's only less power because you are @ 2000 RPMs on a 5000 RPM range, not because to the throttle position. TRQ is a mechanical output of crank revolution driven by combustion in the bores & piston movement. Within a singular engine- that fuel/air mixture is the same if the throttle is at 25% for an hour or 100% for .5 seconds.

In that an engine under WOT is only going to be at 2000 RPM for a split second, in this theoretical argument you'd have to measure that TRQ at the EXACT MOMENT the WOT test hits 2000- and ignore 1999 RPMS and 2001 RPMs. I don't believe 1. it's possible to accurately measure this, and 2. that the TRQ number is going to be any different.

You stuff more air/fuel in under WOT and the engine is lagging in the combustion cycle to push the pistons faster & faster- this is a graph plot, whereas 2000 RPMs is a single point.

I welcome any data that has taken a measured look at this...