2005 Dodge Stratus Sxt Sedan 4-door 2.7l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Dodge Durango SRT vs. Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT | Which should you buy?

Choice is a good thing. And when it comes to high-performance sport utility vehicles, there are more choices today than ever before to tantalize buyers into showrooms. And why not? Americans love SUVs, and, while there's a stronger push to go green now than ever before in the history of internal combustion, there's still a large contingent of buyers who firmly believe in choosing the biggest, baddest, most powerful powerplant. For those buyers, the Dodge Durango SRT and Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT are two of the most potent options. But which one should you buy? They both deliver 475 horsepower and 470 pound-feet of torque to all four wheels through an eight-speed automatic transmission. They both do 0-60 in around 4.4 seconds, and both boast top speed numbers that will handily land you in jail if written on a speeding ticket. Choosing between the two, then, is a bit more nuanced than which is faster. That said, the Jeep is probably a bit quicker at the track than the Dodge. We'd wager than the Grand Cherokee SRT's 5,104-pound curb weight (versus 5,510 for the Durango SRT) and 114.8-inch wheelbase (versus 119.8) will pay small dividends in acceleration, cornering, and braking performance. So, if that's the only category by which you believe these SRT-fettled SUVs should be judged, choose the Jeep. View 17 Photos But let's get real here for a moment. As much fun as it is to wrangle a brutish ute 'round a racetrack – and trust us when we tell you it's a blast – the number of hi-po SUV owners who will ever show up at Bondurant in an SRT-badged 4x4 is probably in the single digits. So, when evaluating which of the two Hemi-powered vehicles is right for you, ultimate lap times are probably of little concern. If you're choosing between these two overpowered players, practicality is probably just as important as performance. And in that category, the Durango SRT comes out on top. For starters, the Dodge is a three-row SUV with six seats, whereas the Jeep is a two-row, five-passenger platform. Fold down the rear bench and there's 84.5 cubic feet of cargo area in the Durango, versus 68.7 in the Grand Cherokee. And if you tow, the Durango SRT's 8,600-pound max rating handily bests that of the Grand Cherokee SRT's 7,200-pound capacity. Ask yourself what's most important: performance or practicality. And then consider the price. The Dodge is nearly $4,000 less expensive than the Jeep.

Fiat Chrysler and the UAW reach tentative labor deal

DETROIT — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union on Saturday announced a tentative agreement for a four-year labor contract, a boost for the automaker as it works to merge with France's Groupe PSA. Italian-American Fiat Chrysler and PSA, the maker of Peugeot and Citroen, last month announced a planned $50 billion merger to create the world's fourth-largest automaker. The tentative agreement with Fiat Chrysler, which is subject to ratification by the union members, follows contracts that the UAW already concluded with Ford Motor Co and General Motors Co. The deal with GM followed a 40-day strike in the United States that virtually shuttered GM's North American operations and cost the automaker $3 billion. The UAW on Saturday said the contract with Fiat Chrysler included a commitment from FCA to invest $9 billion, creating 7,900 new jobs over the course of the four-year contract. Of the $9 billion, $4.5 billion was announced earlier this year, to be invested in five plants and creating 6,500 jobs. Detailed terms of the tentative agreement were not released, but they are expected to echo those under the new contracts with GM and Ford, as the UAW typically uses the first deal as a pattern for the others. "FCA has been a great American success story thanks to the hard work of our members," UAW acting President Rory Gamble said in a statement. "We have achieved substantial gains and job security provisions for the fastest growing auto company in the United States." Ratification is not a sure thing. Rank-and-file UAW members at FCA in 2015 rejected the first version of a contract. In addition, a lawsuit related to a federal corruption probe could also raise doubts among union members about the terms agreed. The federal corruption led GM to file a racketeering lawsuit against FCA, alleging that its rival bribed union officials over many years to corrupt the bargaining process and gain advantages, costing GM billions of dollars. FCA has brushed off the lawsuit as groundless. Under the UAW's deal with GM, the automaker agreed to invest $9 billion in the United States, including $7.7 billion directly in its plants, and to create or retain 9,000 UAW jobs. Ford's contract included commitments to invest more than $6 billion in its U.S. plants and to create or retain more than 8,500 UAW jobs. The deals with GM and Ford also created a pathway to full-time employment for temporary workers and left healthcare insurance coverage unchanged.

Chrysler recalling 644k more Dodge Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs over brakes

Early last month, we reported on Chrysler issuing a preemptive, proactive recall for about 25,000 units of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango. The issue revolved around a brake system that wasn't causing any actual problems, but delivered an unsatisfactory brake feel, so Auburn Hills called in a good 25,000 of SUVs around the world, including 18,700 in the United States.
Now Chrysler, having apparently determined that the brake problem on its sport utes is actually much bigger than it initially realized, has drastically broadened the scope of the recall. As a result, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a recall for precisely 655,354 examples of the Grand Cherokee and Durango, covering the 2011 through 2014 model years. In addition, Chrysler is recalling 42,380 units in Canada, 21,376 in Mexico and 159,685 overseas.
The problem which Chrysler found revolves around the brake booster, whose center shell has been found to be subject to corrosion, allowing water to get into the brake system. That water in turn could freeze, preventing the brakes from working as well as expected.