1991 Jeep Wrangler S Sport Utility 2-door Convertible Small Block Chevy Engine on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Why the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk really exists

"But really, what do we do for Jeep? We listen to our customers, that's our job. We give them what they want. So the reason why is, they ask. Lots of them asked." – Darryl Smith "Why not?" It's a simple-enough explanation and one that should resonate with any car lover who views the absurd and the gloriously pointless as fundamental principles of their passion. And putting a ridiculously powerful engine into a vehicle that would normally not have one is perhaps the pinnacle of that. It's the reason that so many of us view a Mercedes-AMG E63 wagon as far cooler than an SLS AMG with roughly the same engine. With that in mind that we sat down with two of the men responsible for the 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, the latest entry into the absurd and gloriously pointless segment. We wanted to find out from Darryl Smith, director for SRT engineering, and Paul Mackiewicz, vehicle development manager, if there were actual market-based reasons for the Trackhawk's creation. Effectively, why'd they actually do it? "Why not?" Smith immediately offered during an interview at the New York Auto Show, clearly possessing a similar mindset. "But really, what do we do for Jeep? We listen to our customers, that's our job. We give them what they want. So the reason why is, they ask. Lots of them asked." View 24 Photos If "lots" of people are asking for a 707-horsepower, 645-pound-feet, off-road-capable, luxury-lined, five-person SUV, then perhaps we shouldn't be too worried about the demise of the human-driven automobile after all. "There is a very defined customer base out there that want a sport SUV," Mackiewicz said. "They want a sports car with the capabilities of having an SUV, of being able to tow, of being able to drive their sports car all year round. And that's what this car enables. It is ultimate performance, all year round, in any condition." If BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, and even Maserati can produce high-performance SUVs, doesn't it seem fitting that the father of all SUV brands should top them all under the hood? Of course, expanding the 6.2-liter Hellcat engine beyond the Challenger and Charger is clearly a smart business case in the current SUV-obsessed marketplace. FCA had a lust-worthy engine, and it had a solid performance base in the existing Grand Cherokee SRT, so it can be argued that marrying the two made sense and that it could be done with minimal fuss — even if in practical terms, it's absurd.

The future's electric — but the present is peak gasoline. Burn some rubber! Do donuts!

I vividly remember the year 1993 as a teenager looking forward to getting my driver’s license, longingly staring into Pontiac dealerships at every opportunity for a chance to see the brand-new fourth-generation Firebird and Trans Am. Back then, 275 horsepower, courtesy of GMÂ’s LT1 5.7-liter V8 engine, was breathtaking. A few years later, when Ram Air induction systems freed up enough fresh air to boost power over 300 ponies, I figured we were right back where my fatherÂ’s generation left off when the seminal muscle car era ended around the year 1974. It couldn't get any better than that. I was wrong. Horsepower continued climbing, prices remained within reach of the average new-car buyer looking for cheap performance, and a whole new level of muscular magnitude continued widening eyes of automotive enthusiasts all across the United States. It was all ushered in by cheap gasoline prices. And as much as petrolheads bemoan the coming wave of electric vehicles, perhaps instead now would be a good time for critics to sit back and enjoy the current and likely final wave of internal combustion. Today, itÂ’s easier than ever to park an overpowered rear-wheel-drive super coupe or sedan in your driveway. Your nearest Chevy dealership will happily sell you a Camaro with as much as 650 horsepower. Not enough? Take a gander at the Ford showroom and youÂ’ll find a herd of Mustangs up to 760 ponies. Or if nothing but the most powerful will do, waltz on over to the truly combustion-obsessed sales team of a Dodge dealer and relish in the glory of a 797-hp Charger or 807-hp Challenger. Want some more luxury to go with your overgrown stable of horses? Try Cadillac, where you'll find a 668-horsepower CT5-V Blackwing. You could instead choose to wrap that huffin' and chuggin' V8 in an SUV. Or go really off the rails and buy a Ram TRX or Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 and hit the dunes after a quick stop at the drag strip. Go pump some gas. Burn a little rubber. Do donuts! There is nothing but your pocketbook keeping you from buying the V8-powered car of your dreams. Yes, just about every major automaker in the world has halted development of future internal combustion engines in favor of gaining expertise in batteries and electric motors. No, that doesnÂ’t mean that gasoline is going extinct. There are going to be gas stations dotting American cities and highways for the rest of our lifetimes.

2018 Jeep Wrangler four-cylinder fuel economy revealed

Fuel economy numbers for the 2018 Jeep Wrangler with the turbocharged 2.0-liter four-cylinder have finally been announced by the EPA. In the city, the two-door model gets 23 mpg, and the four-door Unlimited gets 22. Highway fuel economy for the two-door is 25 mpg and 24 for the four-door. Combined for the two-door and four-door is 24 and 22 respectively. These aren't Prius numbers, but they do make the four-cylinder Wrangler the most efficient version of the off-roader so far. The rest of the Wrangler range with V6 power gets 20 mpg combined, with the exception of the manual four-door, which gets 19. The most efficient V6 models in the city are the automatic models, which, regardless of length, get 18 mpg. On the highway, the best V6 is the manual two-door, which manages 25 mpg, and only loses 1 mpg in the city to the automatic. The question is, is the improved fuel economy worth the price premium of the four-cylinder? The automatic-only four-cylinder engine is an extra $1,000 over a V6 automatic, and $3,000 over a V6 manual. And when looking at the annual fuel cost estimates at fueleconomy.gov, you might only save $50 to $100 each year. The problem being that, while it's more efficient, it also demands premium fuel that the V6 doesn't. So it could be quite a while before the upfront cost is recouped. But if you want a Wrangler that's a little nicer to the planet, it's probably the way to go, plus you get an extra 35 pound-feet of torque over the V6, even if it means sacrificing nearly 20 horsepower. Related Video: This content is hosted by a third party. To view it, please update your privacy preferences. Manage Settings.