Performance SUVs are stupid. Not totally useless but stupid. Why?
Because you'll pay $80k to trap 116 in the 1/4 mile which means you will be paced dead even with a gen 6 Camaro with your super badass 700+ hp SUV that cost twice as much.
And the more affordable SRT version? 13.0 @ 106 which means it is in the realm of my CTS-V. For a 2017 SUV that costs $67k.
Like I said, performance SUVs are stupid. Just get a minivan or something and a real performance car, not some compromised nonsense for way too much money. /end rant
C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Did I say $80k? Apparently I meant $87k. Base price. As tested in C/D was $91k. And I think it was still missing options - C/D said you can easily top $100k.
What this means is that even if FCA is giving regular people access to muscle, it doesn't mean anything with this engine inherits that same value.
And did I say 116 trap? That was Jeep's spec. C/D trapped 115. Being AWD though, it does have a hard launch and manages to still run a 12 flat which is definitely decent. But I'd rather have a V3 for what this costs (it would be an even trade) or something more practical and a still-higher performance vehicle.
What this means is that even if FCA is giving regular people access to muscle, it doesn't mean anything with this engine inherits that same value.
And did I say 116 trap? That was Jeep's spec. C/D trapped 115. Being AWD though, it does have a hard launch and manages to still run a 12 flat which is definitely decent. But I'd rather have a V3 for what this costs (it would be an even trade) or something more practical and a still-higher performance vehicle.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Here's your $100k Track Hawk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek_aZC4KIQM
It is interesting how a 115 mph trap feels unstoppable to him when it is packaged into a JGC. Again, power to weight wise, this thing couldn't really out run a regular gen 6 Camaro.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek_aZC4KIQM
It is interesting how a 115 mph trap feels unstoppable to him when it is packaged into a JGC. Again, power to weight wise, this thing couldn't really out run a regular gen 6 Camaro.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
TST One Take on the track.
https://youtu.be/cwBZiT_56wA
The single biggest problem is the name. This is a 100% street vehicle. It has no business on the track and is not good on the track. Other than that, it is probably some people's idea of a perfect family vehicle. From an FCA perspective I'd probably notch that down to something more "reasonable" like the Durango SRT with the 392.
I would have accepted TrackHog after watching the video. Or perhaps TrackHawg to be cutsie with it.
https://youtu.be/cwBZiT_56wA
The single biggest problem is the name. This is a 100% street vehicle. It has no business on the track and is not good on the track. Other than that, it is probably some people's idea of a perfect family vehicle. From an FCA perspective I'd probably notch that down to something more "reasonable" like the Durango SRT with the 392.
I would have accepted TrackHog after watching the video. Or perhaps TrackHawg to be cutsie with it.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Not likely... LOL/end rant
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
StripHawk may be more realistic. But that suggests something entirely different...
I actually don't understand why it couldn't just be a JGC Hellcat. That makes the most sense to me.
I re-read this short thread. The theme has definitely stayed consistent as have my opinions on this vehicle. These days, anything that is a premium truck or premium SUV or even premium crossover is really not a great value, imo. Is it because the luxury market is stupid? Maybe. But where is the $65k stripped down JGC with the Hellcat engine, to increase sales? For one, that's probably not economically possible but even if it was, do they really want 3x the gas guzzlers bringing down their CAFE?
Again, regulations may have noble goals, and some accomplish those goals. But almost always there are unintended, uncalculated side effects. I am not trying to over simplify and say regulations = a worse car market, but certain questions are answered when you look at the different regulations (for better or for worse).
So there's CAFE for why an OEM may not want to increase sales of gas guzzlers. There are also significant cost implications for the mandated safety stuff - even if we say those safety benefits were 100% "worth it," that does NOT mean there wasn't a bill or a non-monetary cost. I think reliability has also been impacted by CAFE and emissions regs (or at the very least, simple engine designs are basically completely impossible now), and even the safety regs just due to increased complexity. In fact you can be sure that 3/4 and 1 ton diesels over the past 20 years have been DIRECTLY impacted in both reliability and, to a large extent, fuel economy, due to these regulations. Mandated stuff also increases vehicle weight which drives up other costs and impacts in other areas (more expensive chassis stuff but also a bigger consumables bill like tires, brakes, etc.). How about ethanol? Or, yeah I am going there, socialized health care? Or $15 minimum wage. Or affirmative action. Or the carbon tax. Or gun control. The list is very, very long and usually the discussion is pretty one-sided, if it happens at all. Why? Because politicians and the media offer super compelling arguments like:
- You don't like our approach to gun control? That's because you hate children.
- You don't like our approach to CO2 emissions? That's because you hate the environment.
- You don't like our approach to affirmative action? That's obviously because you are racist.
- You don't like our approach to minimum wage? That's because you hate poor people.
This is exactly why we got Trump. Now we have to deal with it. But wow, I digress.
I guess the point is, it is complex. You can't just wave a magic wand and say "I want the exact same cars at the exact same price with the exact same characteristics, but with 10 more MPG and those damn automakers can build it, but they are just too greedy, so we will pass a law that will make them and that will be the end of that." Complete nonsense. And when legislators pass laws that "sound good" at the time, no one really seems to look into the long term potential impacts and even include them as part of the trade study/analysis. Anyone that approaches laws and the economy that way is intellectually bankrupt. I find that reprehensible.
I actually don't understand why it couldn't just be a JGC Hellcat. That makes the most sense to me.
I re-read this short thread. The theme has definitely stayed consistent as have my opinions on this vehicle. These days, anything that is a premium truck or premium SUV or even premium crossover is really not a great value, imo. Is it because the luxury market is stupid? Maybe. But where is the $65k stripped down JGC with the Hellcat engine, to increase sales? For one, that's probably not economically possible but even if it was, do they really want 3x the gas guzzlers bringing down their CAFE?
Again, regulations may have noble goals, and some accomplish those goals. But almost always there are unintended, uncalculated side effects. I am not trying to over simplify and say regulations = a worse car market, but certain questions are answered when you look at the different regulations (for better or for worse).
So there's CAFE for why an OEM may not want to increase sales of gas guzzlers. There are also significant cost implications for the mandated safety stuff - even if we say those safety benefits were 100% "worth it," that does NOT mean there wasn't a bill or a non-monetary cost. I think reliability has also been impacted by CAFE and emissions regs (or at the very least, simple engine designs are basically completely impossible now), and even the safety regs just due to increased complexity. In fact you can be sure that 3/4 and 1 ton diesels over the past 20 years have been DIRECTLY impacted in both reliability and, to a large extent, fuel economy, due to these regulations. Mandated stuff also increases vehicle weight which drives up other costs and impacts in other areas (more expensive chassis stuff but also a bigger consumables bill like tires, brakes, etc.). How about ethanol? Or, yeah I am going there, socialized health care? Or $15 minimum wage. Or affirmative action. Or the carbon tax. Or gun control. The list is very, very long and usually the discussion is pretty one-sided, if it happens at all. Why? Because politicians and the media offer super compelling arguments like:
- You don't like our approach to gun control? That's because you hate children.
- You don't like our approach to CO2 emissions? That's because you hate the environment.
- You don't like our approach to affirmative action? That's obviously because you are racist.
- You don't like our approach to minimum wage? That's because you hate poor people.
This is exactly why we got Trump. Now we have to deal with it. But wow, I digress.
I guess the point is, it is complex. You can't just wave a magic wand and say "I want the exact same cars at the exact same price with the exact same characteristics, but with 10 more MPG and those damn automakers can build it, but they are just too greedy, so we will pass a law that will make them and that will be the end of that." Complete nonsense. And when legislators pass laws that "sound good" at the time, no one really seems to look into the long term potential impacts and even include them as part of the trade study/analysis. Anyone that approaches laws and the economy that way is intellectually bankrupt. I find that reprehensible.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Premium never = best value. It usually means most expensive, which is usually the opposite of best value.premium
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Yeah and guess what? Everything has to be premium these days. Everything needs to have the best interior in its class or it is junk (a statistical impossibility). I don't really agree with this trend. I don't see why every vehicle needs to garner review wording like "this vehicle blurs the line between the mass market and the luxury segment.". Not sure who to blame. Everyone I guess.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
Wasn't that my whole argument for the V8 Camaro being 40K? Pretty sure you were the one that said "oh well going from leather to cloth wouldn't make the Camaro 30K from 40". I agree. Everything is too expensive. You should be able to buy a pretty nice looking performance car that looks decent on the outside and doesn't require you to buy Bluetooth, have wifi, 35 speakers, leather, power seat, ect.Everything has to be premium these days.
How much is a 4 cyl turbo Camaro? 27K? Can you really tell me that a 4 cyl turbo powerplant is cheaper than a 5.3?
If they were selling the 5.3 Camaro for 30K I bet people would buy it. Not only would they buy it, but it would be the real tuner car that they wanted the stupid 4cyl turbo to have been, because people would buy it and turbo that thing without having to go to the junkyard and doing a swap.
Can you imagine? If GM sold the 5.3 iron truck engine hooked up to a strong trans for 30K and no options except maybe AC I bet it would sell, and give them so much free publicity like all the LS engine swap stuff happening.
Re: C/D: Jeep Trackhawk
GM needs to follow the trends if they want to sell cars. I'm not interested in them going out of business by standing up to some principle.
The problem, however, is on the demand side and media side. There is no market for non-premium vehicles and they review poorly. Everyone complains about 1/2 ton truck prices but when is the last time you saw a non-commercial buyer in a Work Truck trim of a 1/2 ton because "everything is too expensive"? No one. People don't want that.
The problem, however, is on the demand side and media side. There is no market for non-premium vehicles and they review poorly. Everyone complains about 1/2 ton truck prices but when is the last time you saw a non-commercial buyer in a Work Truck trim of a 1/2 ton because "everything is too expensive"? No one. People don't want that.