1978 Jeep Cj5 on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Chrysler to accelerate production of 2013 Ram and V6 engines

Chrysler is adding a third shift at its Warren Truck plant to meet demand for the new 2013 Ram pickup. And with tight supplies of its Pentastar V6, the company is also boosting output at its Mack Engine plant.
The expansions will add 1,250 jobs and are part of a $238 million investment by Chrysler in the Detroit area. Warren's third shift will begin work sometime in the spring, a Chrysler rep told Automotive News. Mack's increased Pentastar production a could include both 3.6 and 3.2-liter engines.
The company says it also plans to invest $40 million in its Trenton Engine plant to allow for production of a 3.2-liter V6 as well as the Tigershark inline-four for the upcoming Jeep Liberty replacement.

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.

Trying the new Compass and other Jeeps on for size

If any brand has license to sell several like-sized SUVs, it's Jeep, which invented the concept in the first place. Yet, with the Cherokee, Renegade, and the redesigned 2017 Jeep Compass revealed at the LA Auto Show, just how like-sized is this trio of compact SUVs? Well, as it turns out, that answer is more complicated than just looking at various spreadsheets of specifications. After the cover was pulled off the new Compass, I managed to explore each back-to-back-to-back to see how their back seats and cargo areas compare. Perhaps obviously, the Renegade is the smallest of the trio no matter how you look it. Well, it actually has the most headroom, but rear legroom is cramped (a 6-footer can't sit behind another 6-footer) and it's quite obvious the cargo area is about nine cubic feet smaller with the rear seats raised. However, the Cherokee and Compass are surprisingly similar both on paper and in person – and even more surprisingly, the newer, smaller-on-the-outside Compass is actually a bit more spacious despite being nine inches shorter in overall length. View 14 Photos When seated in back, my knees were just touching the driver seat when it was motored most of the way back to accommodate my 6-foot-3 frame. However, the Cherokee's slightly chunkier seatback meant the Compass actually had a bit more rear legroom. I then set the passenger seat to a more average distance and again, the Compass had a slight advantage. The Cherokee did have a bit more under-thigh support, however, which indicates the seat is mounted a bit higher. But that creates a problem, as headroom is more significantly affected when the panoramic sunroof is specified. In the Cherokee, my head was into the sunroof cavity and resting against its rigid surround. In the Compass, there was just enough clearance. It should be a difference, both in terms of headroom and perceived roominess that those of average height should notice. As for their cargo areas, the Compass' is larger and more useable. With the rear seats raised, it has 27.2 cubic feet versus the Cherokee's 24.6. You can scoot its sliding seat forward to nearly equal the Compass, but of course doing so reduces its rear legroom. The main reason is width. The Cherokee is noticeably narrow and it gets worse when equipped with the optional subwoofer. In terms of maximum cargo volume with the rear seats lowered, the Compass has 59.8 cubic feet to the Cherokee's 54.9.