Reigner92 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 (edited) http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/1008_2011_jeep_grand_cherokee_drive/index.html Edited June 21, 2010 by Reigner92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 For all the bashing on the Explorer for going unibody and just being a tall wagon (Freestyle/Taurus X), this new Jeep looks more like a tall station wagon that the previous models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 For all the bashing on the Explorer for going unibody and just being a tall wagon (Freestyle/Taurus X), this new Jeep looks more like a tall station wagon that the previous models. Bububububu it's RWD so that makes it perfect. Don't you know anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Bububububu it's RWD so that makes it perfect. Don't you know anything? You're right...I'm sorry. I forgot that makes so much difference when it is in 4WD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 Jeep loyalists are a funny group. Like Toyota and Honda owners, they are quick to ignore mechanical problems and brush them off as driver error. Not too many SUV owners would tolerate that quality BS at that price tag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 21, 2010 Share Posted June 21, 2010 So far, every review I've read is glowing about it. Hope it bodes well for this and future product from Chrysler. This and the new Ram finally show some interior design worthy of the 2000's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 For the people who like real SUV it makes sense. It makes sense as a Jeep even more so. I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 For the people who like real SUV it makes sense. It makes sense as a Jeep even more so. I like it. What about the switch from a SRA w/leaf springs to IRS? I thought that's exactly what killed the Explorer for serious off-roaders in 2002. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 What about the switch from a SRA w/leaf springs to IRS? I thought that's exactly what killed the Explorer for serious off-roaders in 2002. You do realize the Grand Cherokee has never been produced with leaf springs.............just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 You do realize the Grand Cherokee has never been produced with leaf springs.............just sayin'. Sorry - I must have misread the SRA comment. But I still thought SRA was preferred for rock crawling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) oops duplicate post..... Edited June 22, 2010 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Sorry - I must have misread the SRA comment. But I still thought SRA was preferred for rock crawling. Yes, for better articulation while rock crawling, SRA is preferred. There are many functions now that allow for better articulation with IRS, but for ease and simplicity (and overall "off the shelf" performance), SRA is the best choice for rock crawling. Of course, most Grand Cherokees will be mall crawlers anyway and the only articulation they need to worry about are speed bumps. However, the newest Grand Cherokee did traverse the Rubicon trail in street tires (albeit with quite a few dings and dents afterward). See how that driver's side rear tire is kinda hanging in the air a bit (in the picture below)? That's the result of the IRS not having as much articulation as an SRA. In an SRA, the right tire pushes up while on an obstacle and forces the left tire down (since the two are connected via a solid axle...it acts as a "see-saw" if you will). Even an SRA is limited by stock springs, etc...in how much it can travel. However, SRA will always rule for this type of offroading. Note the Wrangler (showing the solid axle front suspension here) articulation in a similar obstacle. See how both tires are planted on solid ground even though the vehicle is at a severe angle? This allows for much greater traction in some crazy situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) That's the result of the IRS not having as much articulation as an SRA. I believe the advantage of an SRA isn't that the two wheels are connected, as much as it is the length of the articluating members. On an SRA, the pivot point for the axle is the hub of the opposite wheel, while the pivot point of an IRS is the attachment point on the mounted differential. The extreme articulation shown on the Wrangler wouldn't be possible in many, if not all, independently sprung axle assemblies. Possibly you could get similar articulation from a 'twin I beam' type of suspension (e.g. suspension arms that extend well past the vehicle's center) on an axle that isn't driven. Edited June 22, 2010 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 That image is a little misleading because of the angle it is shot at. I attached a more upright version. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I believe the advantage of an SRA isn't that the two wheels are connected, as much as it is the length of the articluating members. On an SRA, the pivot point for the axle is the hub of the opposite wheel, while the pivot point of an IRS is the attachment point on the mounted differential. The extreme articulation shown on the Wrangler wouldn't be possible in many, if not all, independently sprung axle assemblies. Possibly you could get similar articulation from a 'twin I beam' type of suspension (e.g. suspension arms that extend well past the vehicle's center) on an axle that isn't driven. Yes... additionally, not many stock Independent suspension take to lifting beyond the stock height (to make up any difference) as well because of the CV joints not responding well to the increased angle (as the center diff is bolted in place). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) Yes... additionally, not many stock Independent suspension take to lifting beyond the stock height (to make up any difference) as well because of the CV joints not responding well to the increased angle (as the center diff is bolted in place). Not to mention the camber problems caused by screwing with an independent suspension. The flip side of the SRA/IRS debate (as a general FYI for the board) is that a conventional independent suspension provides a better contact patch under less extreme conditions, which is why it's preferred almost everywhere else. Edited June 22, 2010 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 That image is a little misleading because of the angle it is shot at. I attached a more upright version. :D I thought there was something fishy about that picture... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fgts Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 You do realize the Grand Cherokee has never been produced with leaf springs.............. Or body-on-frame, Nor made an a fwd platform shared with a land yacht / family cruisers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Or body-on-frame, Nor made an a fwd platform shared with a land yacht / family cruisers. or with reasonable fuel efficiency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.