Can a Grand Cherokee fit in the city?

[G51989]

And yet I can out accelerate your F350… I know, my buddy has one. Though it was 4 years old at the time.

Well, mine is a 2011, with a 6.8 Liter V10 that I threw a Whipple 2.3 Liter supercharger on, I can do 0-60 in about 7 seconds

With your front catcher you are going to kill most people. Take the front catcher off and you'd be surprised. The Smarts are engineered to use their steel cage (something your F350 doesn't have) to use your crumple zones. My friend here was in a corner to corner front end crash (driver to driver) at moderate speed with a pickup… about F150 sized. The trucks crumple zones crumped so much they wrote off the truck… the Smart was fixed up. The Smart Car's computer decided the impact wasn't to bad, so it merely tightened up the seat belts and she had no injuries, except to her wrist from holding the steering wheel. The trucks airbags deployed and put that driver in hospital.

That was more than likely an older F150.

The idea that trucks are not safe is an old one, yes lots of older trucks are not safe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4ke8lWAVo

I have actually gotten in a head on crash with a Mercedes S500 in my F350 before I put a catcher on it, I was totally fine, I needed a new front clip, and new belt drives on the front of the engine, but that was about it. Remember, my truck has a frame built to withstand up to 1500ftlbs of engine torque ( Stock the engine only makes about 350, diesels make around 900 ftlbs when modified ), and being able to load up to 5500lbs in the rear bed, and tow up to 17,500 pounds at the same time, wrecking into a beer can won't hurt the structural integrity of a large modern truck.

Almost all modern vehicles will crumple to protect the driver, insurance is there for a reason. That is where the Smart falls short, it can't spread the impact around, so if you wreck into something to fast, the whiplash alone can kill you.

For urban driving, a Smart is plenty safe enough for me. Plus they don't tend to roll over or fish tail.

I've never rolled any vehicle ;0 And a modern truck won't fishtail unless you turn off the traction control and use lots of throttle.

Plus, a smart car can't do donuts. So wheres the fun?

Embarrassing? Ha.. 'round here they're considered sexy. But then again, we are kinda environmentally conscious.

Depends, in NYC where I often commute to for work and my own business Smart car's are accepted, but not considered sexy.

Out where I live tho, most people would call it a beer can and wonder how you get along in winter.

Some of the farmers where I live buy used Smarts, cut the roof off and turn it into a farm cart, because its cheaper than a high end mule or golf cart.

Fuel is cheaper when it takes a tenth of what you need to. I go a couple of weeks on about $30 of gas…and I live in Canada where our gas is something like twice as expensive. Embarrassing is spending way more than you have to just to move 2 tons of empty sheet metal around…. imho at least….

The OP is looking at a car that runs almost 40,000 when decently optioned out, and it starts around 30,000 I doubt fuel budget runs in the mind of his monthly finances.

Who say's I'm not moving anything? More often than not Its pulling my Boat, or my race trailer ( where I keep my Track car, I also have a drag car ), or moving asstons of materials around my property, that and it Only goes to NYC when the weather is awful. A small bit of snow can stop a Smart Car, where I've plowed through 3 and a half feet of snow in Wisconsin during a vacation visit no problem in myF350. I used to the F350 as an example of it being larger than the Jeep, but still easily manageable.

I do have a gas saver ( I own lots of cars, I LOVE cars ), my 2012 Corvette Grand Sport gets around 18mpg average, 15 city, and 27 highway, I would call that great MPG for a car that can nearly hit 200mph.

I call it my Gas Saver, as my 590WHP 04 Marauder gets like 11mpg, and my 1969 Z28 Camaro gets about 10mpg lol They're both super cool looking and fast tho

I have had to deal with a Smart before, I rented one in France for whatever reason, I thought " Eh, why not? " Quickly, I realized I should have went for the Renault Cilo instead.

Pros:

Good on fuel
Easy To Park
Super Cheap to rent
It already had dents all over it, typical of most cars in France

Cons:

No features
No interior room
No Storage room
Low Ground Clearance ( My Corvette is worse tho I'll admit )
Being made fun of by pedestrians
No Horsepower
Low Speed
No Handling.

I'm sure its a great car for 100% city driving. But to compare it to the Jeep Grand Cherokee is just silly, I don't think they are even in the same class of personal vehicles.

Also what if the OP wants to leave the city? Go on the interstate and go outside of Urban limits? He'll very quickly realize that a Smart can't handle anything outside of the city.

Plus, does a Smart offer the same comforts and features of a Grand Cherokee? I am not saying the Smart is a bad car, I'm sure its fine for Urban Living if you never leave the city. But outside the city, it quickly becomes unusable.

Also.

F350 engine. 6.8 liter, V10

5.7 Liter, V8 found in the Jeep.

vs

SMART Engine.

Which one will last longer? The Large displacement engines that are hardly taxed in day to day driving? Or a small 1 liter engine which will struggle to its limit just to make the next intersection?

 

[LIVEFRMNYC]

Get the Jeep ........ Nothing else to talk about

 

[Tomorrow]

I would prefer to survive a crash with a beer can.

I LOL'd at this.

 

[kellen]

Just as a piece of trivia.... the closest city to where I live, Victoria BC, is the only city in North America** to have a fleet of double-decker busses

Seattle has them, FYI.

While I see how some people would want the smart as a car for the city, its MPG isn't the best for what you are getting. 38MPG is good, but you can do much better with more comforts driving a diesel jetta/golf or prius.

 

[snberk103]

Seattle has them, FYI.

Yep. Must be new. I'll change the Victoria claim... Davis California and Las Vegas have them too now, it appears.

While I see how some people would want the smart as a car for the city, its MPG isn't the best for what you are getting. 38MPG is good, but you can do much better with more comforts driving a diesel jetta/golf or prius.

Yes... can't argue with this. Not the absolute most fuel efficient.... but still the easiest to park in cities with special parking spots for micro cars.

 

[prostuff1]

Seattle has them, FYI.

While I see how some people would want the smart as a car for the city, its MPG isn't the best for what you are getting. 38MPG is good, but you can do much better with more comforts driving a diesel jetta/golf or prius.

The diesel cruze gets something like 30 city and 50 highway mpg.

 

[ucfgrad93]

For city driving I'd take a Civic or similar over a Smart Car any day. The Smart Car is just too small.

 

[G51989]

Seattle has them, FYI.

While I see how some people would want the smart as a car for the city, its MPG isn't the best for what you are getting. 38MPG is good, but you can do much better with more comforts driving a diesel jetta/golf or prius.

A SMART only gets 38mpg? Holy crap. I had a friend in high school who had a 5 speed Plymouth K car that would get about 34-37mpg if you kept your foot out of it.

Then again it didn't have AC or power steering, and only had about 85 horsepower

As stated above, a Honda Civic gets almost the same MPG, while being twice the size, with twice the seats, and lots more power. For the same price!

 

[AustinIllini]

For city driving I'd take a Civic or similar over a Smart Car any day. The Smart Car is just too small.

This. Smart tries to sell novelty as useful. It's really below the point of comfort. Honda all day

 

[yg17]

A SMART only gets 38mpg? Holy crap. I had a friend in high school who had a 5 speed Plymouth K car that would get about 34-37mpg if you kept your foot out of it.

Then again it didn't have AC or power steering, and only had about 85 horsepower

As stated above, a Honda Civic gets almost the same MPG, while being twice the size, with twice the seats, and lots more power. For the same price!

Yep, only 38 highway. I can't think of a reason to own a Smart given all the other options out there. If you insist on buying a new car, the Smart is actually about $5,000 cheaper than a Civic, but you could get a new Nissan Versa for about $1,500 less than a Smart car or Kia Rio for about the same price.

 

[kellen]

A SMART only gets 38mpg? Holy crap. I had a friend in high school who had a 5 speed Plymouth K car that would get about 34-37mpg if you kept your foot out of it.

Thats why I don't understand them that much. Yes its small so if you are worried about parkings spots. However living in the city, I have found it isn't the size of parking spot, it is just the availability.

If they were significantly cheaper than other new cars, but at 14k'ish for a little more you could be in a honda or VW. Or used.

But to each their own, if it works for you and you are happy, great.

 

[G51989]

Yep, only 38 highway. I can't think of a reason to own a Smart given all the other options out there. If you insist on buying a new car, the Smart is actually about $5,000 cheaper than a Civic, but you could get a new Nissan Versa for about $1,500 less than a Smart car or Kia Rio for about the same price.

Jeez, when I had rented one in France out of curiosity, I just assumed it had a tiny tank and that's why I was filling up so much. I didn't pay attention to how much it costs, because I haven't done that since my college days " Haha! 10 bucks, woo! "

But for a car like that I would want it to get at least 70mpg. 38 is a joke considering there are cars twice its size that do the same MPG, for the same money.

 

[puma1552]

Why is it that in EVERY car thread on this site, regardless of what the OP is looking for, there's always ONE person coming in touting some no power, no frills, no fun tin can? To some people there is enjoyment in driving, enjoyment in vehicles, and most people want something more from their cars than just a tin can to get from A to B uncomfortable.

The guy wants a Jeep or a Tiguan, I'm sure he doesn't give a crap about a Smart car or equivalent.

The real joke is the clowns driving the Smart car, who are completely oblivious to the fact they could buy a TDI Passat and get a damn near full size car with plenty of torque and 45 miles per gallon. Same with a TDI Jetta if you want something smallish. You'd also get far more features, utility, and safety.

Seriously, everything - and I mean everything - about the Smart sucks, including the gas mileage. I mean think about it, you give up literally everything there is to possibly enjoy in a car to get a lousy 38 mpg which not only not that good by today's standards, but actually quite terrible for how small the car is? That fuel economy is terrible for that tin can. I realize it wouldn't win you any "green" points with your latte-sipping, thick-rim-glasses-wearing, Apple-using Starbucks harlots, but a diesel would give you:

A) Better economy than any Smart car
B) Better features than any Smart car
C) Better resale than any Smart car
D) Better safety than any Smart car

How can you win with a Smart car or other similar tin can? Answer - you can't. I guess if the only thing you care about is having the tiniest turd on the road, well, you win that I guess; sure give up a lot to do so though.

Sorry, but it irks me why people with these tin cans always feel the need to post when it's obvious the OP couldn't care any less. Happens in every one of these threads, without fail.

That said, OP - can't go wrong with either, but I'm a fan of the Tiguan R-line. About the only small SUV out there that has SUV proportions.

 

[G51989]

Why is it that in EVERY car thread on this site, regardless of what the OP is looking for, there's always ONE person coming in touting some no power, no frills, no fun tin can?

These kind of people can drive whatever they want, but I feel that they think by driving such a small car, they are fixing some kind of " problem " that doesn't exist.

If you ONLY live in a congested city, then sure I could see a SMART being a useful car. But this assumes you live alone with no storage to take.

To some people there is enjoyment in driving, enjoyment in vehicles, and most people want something more from their cars than just a tin can to get from A to B uncomfortable.

I feel people like that are pesdo environmentalists who have never driven a performance car.

The guy wants a Jeep or a Tiguan, I'm sure he doesn't give a crap about a Smart car or equivalent.

More than likely. Also, My F350 is bigger than either and I never have an issue parking in the city. Every parking spot is the same regulation size, and as long as the other drivers aren't idiots, its a tight fit. But I can get my F350 into an normal sized parking space no problem.

The real joke is the clowns driving the Smart car, who are completely oblivious to the fact they could buy a TDI Passat and get a damn near full size car with plenty of torque and 45 miles per gallon. Same with a TDI Jetta if you want something smallish. You'd also get far more features, utility, and safety.

Excuse me sir. Having a car with lower emissions, and better MPG, while being bigger and safer than a smart with a nicer interior and more options is killing our ozone and destroying our clean air. Getting a smaller car with worse MPG and more emissions is the way to save the planet.

Seriously, everything - and I mean everything - about the Smart sucks, including the gas mileage. I mean think about it, you give up literally everything there is to possibly enjoy in a car to get a lousy 38 mpg which not only not that good by today's standards, but actually quite terrible for how small the car is? That fuel economy is terrible for that tin can. I realize it wouldn't win you any "green" points with your latte-sipping, thick-rim-glasses-wearing, Apple-using Starbucks harlots, but a diesel would give you:

There are a few cities in Europe I could see a SMART being useful in, but that is ONLY if you keep it inside the city.

I mean, its not like my buddy in College ( I started in 1999 at FSU ) had a 1993 5 speed Honda Accord EX, with a sunroof, leather interior, heated seats, tons of room inside, lots of cupholders, a big trunk, and a 2.2 liter engine which provided 36mpg highway, and about 28 mpg in the city while producing 145hp? And unlike a SMART, it was very stable at high way speeds, super quiet as well. That was an awesome car for 7 grand. He drove the damn thing up until 2007 when he finished his PHD and another masters.

Seems like a 20 year old Honda takes the smart to school.

How can you win with a Smart car or other similar tin can? Answer - you can't. I guess if the only thing you care about is having the tiniest turd on the road, well, you win that I guess; sure give up a lot to do so though.

I think people who drive a SMART or a Prius, or something like a GWiz in Europe are trying to say " I care more than you, you drive a larger Honda Civic that gets the same MPG, but my car is smaller so I am better than you! "

Sorry, but it irks me why people with these tin cans always feel the need to post when it's obvious the OP couldn't care any less. Happens in every one of these threads, without fail.

Trying to Justify spending 15,000 dollars on a go kart. When there were plenty of Fords, Hondas, Hyundais, Toyotas and VWs on the market, twice the size. Same MPG, for the same price or slightly more.

That said, OP - can't go wrong with either, but I'm a fan of the Tiguan R-line. About the only small SUV out there that has SUV proportions.

I am a HUGE fan of the Tiguan R line, super cool stuff.

But lets be honest here, that 370 horsepower 400ftlbs of torque 5.7 V8 in the Jeep is damn sexy

 

[G51989]

LOL, you guys and your big cars My primary vehicle is a single cylinder 250cc motorcycle - and I can carry two people and groceries in the city just fine, thankyouverymuch, although most of the time it's just me, just like with most car trips. It's amazing what can be done with 16 hp.

Anything can fit in the city. A double-decker bus can fit in the city, assuming you know how to handle it. If your needs call for a Grand Cherokee, why not? If you have to parallel park it regularly, you'll learn to do it well fairly quickly with practice.

You are one brave person

I have my bike, a 500CC Bullet Classic Royal Enfield, and a Hardly Davidson 883, while I LOVE to ride, I would not want to ride either of them in the city. All it takes it some ******* not paying attention to his driving, or someone who was to cheap to maintain his brakes to kill you.

 

[senseless]

More than likely. Also, My F350 is bigger than either and I never have an issue parking in the city. Every parking spot is the same regulation size, and as long as the other drivers aren't idiots, its a tight fit. But I can get my F350 into an normal sized parking space no problem.

Actually, pickups are much easier to park than SUVs, because of the visibility factor. Not extended cab full 8' bed pickups though. Our work truck is a bear to park in the city.

 

[jav6454]

....

Plus, with the Escape and the Tiguan, you get puny 4 cylinders. With the GC, you can option it out with a 370HP V8. Will easily leave those two in the dust.

This is the only thing I disagree with. Yes, you can get a better engine, but my 4 cylinders are anything but puny. My Escape does the job done and really well for the amount of cylinders it has.

I feel having a V8 is just wasteful in itself. Also, take into account, with the Escape's V4 engine you get 240HP where as with that engine you need to add 4 more cylinders for a 130HP boost over the Escape's. I can't imagine that being good for the gas mileage.

 

[G51989]

This is the only thing I disagree with. Yes, you can get a better engine, but my 4 cylinders are anything but puny. My Escape does the job done and really well for the amount of cylinders it has. .

The thing is, to make a inline 4 engine not be totally awful, you need a turbocharger. Which means lots of waiting.

I've driven the newer escape, no low end torque, so for me I am not interested.

I feel having a V8 is just wasteful in itself. Also, take into account, with the Escape's V4 engine you get 240HP where as with that engine you need to add 4 more cylinders for a 130HP boost over the Escape's. I can't imagine that being good for the gas mileage.

The Escape has a Turbocharged INLINE 4 cylinder engine, not a V4.

Now keep in mind, if we are talking the Jeep's 5.7 HEMI V8, it makes 130 more horsepower, and 120ftlbs more torque. ALSO, all that power is available whenever you want it, you don't have to wait for a turbo to spool up, and you don't need 93 octane fuel for it, and it gets comparable fuel mileage.

Also, no turbo charger or electronic boost control, or extra cooling for the turbo charger, no 93 octane fuel needed, and no complicated exhaust system needed, so it will more than likely be more reliable and cheaper in the long run.

And if he wanted the premium engine option on the Jeep Grand Cherokee, the 6.4 Liter V8. He is looking at 230 more horsepower, and 195ftlbs more torque.

Big difference.

I had a Mercury Grand Marquis in College, a 1999 model, with a big lazy 4 speed automtic transmission and 4.6 liter V8 engine. ( Grandpa just GAVE it to me, it was brand new at the time, i was SO grateful ), and on the highway, if I kept my foot out of it, I would average about 27mpg. And 21 around town, not bad for a big V8.

Also, who cares about fuel mileage? Fuel is cheap.

Also the maintence for these newer 4 cylinder turbocharged engines is going to be VERY expensive. If you blow a turbocharger, your looking at 2-3,000 just in parts. Turbochargers are VERY expensive devices.

 

[puma1552]

I agree on the comments above about 4s needing the turbochargers and the added complexity and inevitable turbo lag that goes with them.

'tis true, the V8 will last forever, doesn't need to work nearly as hard, and is much simpler and cheaper to own and maintain.

I know on the BMW 135i (which depending on year is either a twin turbo 3.0 inline 6 or a twin scroll single turbo 3.0 inline 6), when those turbos go, you are looking at somewhere in the ballpark of $7k. Granted there's a BMW tax there, but still.

What I don't understand though is why the big preference by manufacturers to turbo the small engines instead of developing small superchargers; with the latter the power is "on demand" with no turbo lag, just like a naturally aspirated engine.

 

[G51989]

What I don't understand though is why the big preference by manufacturers to turbo the small engines instead of developing small superchargers; with the latter the power is "on demand" with no turbo lag, just like a naturally aspirated engine.

I could be wrong as I am not a car maker, but in the years of modifying cars, it always seems superchargers are far more expensive than Turbochargers, the Supercharger I put on my 2003 Marauder cost nearly 6,000 dollars. That did not inculde any of the parts, or the special intake either.

Turbochargers are probably much cheaper to produce, and they do not require as much maintenance.

Also, the biggest reason you don't see superchargers on tiny engines, at least out of the factory. Is that with a turbocharger, the exhaust gases spin a turbine, which in turn forces more air into the engine. This doesn't really require anything more than exhaust gases.

A Supercharger does not do that, it forces air into the engine in the same manner ( there are several types of superchargers ), but typically they use two " screws " that are very finely machined to force air into the engine via a belt attacked to the crank pulley on the engine, this means the supercharger itself needs horsepower just to work, making it very effective on large engines with power to spare, but not so effective on small engines.

There are small supercharged cars, like the Mini, but these are very small superchargers that don't really do much for power output.

For example, the Ford GT has a Supercharged 5.4 Liter V8, producing 550 Horsepower, but the supercharger takes 125 horsepower just to work. The advantage of the supercharger however as you stated, is that all the power is there whenever you want it, there is no " turbo lag ". However some very high end european cars have gotten around " turbo lag " with VNT turbochargers, a System pioneered by Chrysler in the 1980s.

 

[G51989]

Actually, pickups are much easier to park than SUVs, because of the visibility factor. Not extended cab full 8' bed pickups though. Our work truck is a bear to park in the city.

My F350 has the extended cab, so that makes seeing the back of the bed a pain, but I do have the backup camera which is helpful, it just sucks at night in tight spots.

And yeah, sometimes its a little to big for some spots, but I've never had much trouble finding a spot I could fit in,

My Crown Vic was actually the worst, it is HUGE for a car, and the turning radius is REALLY bad. As the wheels don't turn very much due to them being so wide.

----------

'tis true, the V8 will last forever, doesn't need to work nearly as hard, and is much simpler and cheaper to own and maintain.

Yep, and if you blow a turbocharger on the road, you'll be towed to a dealership, and probably waiting a few days on parts, and at least another day to install and test, forced induction systems are VERY expensive and complex.

With a standard V8 engine, unless you have a serious engine issue, pretty much any problem can be solved with a little bit of thinking, basic hand tools and parts from any auto parts store.

That being said, a buddy of mine in college had a 1993 Honda Accord 5 speed, that little 2.2 liter needed to be revved to 3500-4000rpm just to drive in normal state route traffic, sat at 2900rpm at 70mph, but never had an issue.

My F350 does about 1400rpm at 70mph. Tho I plan to replace it with the new 2014 Dodge Ram 1500 Big Horn. Smaller and nicer.