Challenger SE and R/T times

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah I'm worried about the Camaro too, have they released the final weight yet?

That and poor visibility are my chief concerns.

I don't know why blind spots, ginourmous A-pillars and other safety hazards are being allowed into these new cars all in the name of aesthetics.

Sure a sports car needs to look good, but not by making it a deathtrap.

You should see how bad the blind spots are in the Lotus Elise. The Exige is even worse because you cannot see anything at all in the rear view mirror.

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah the Eclipse has totally sucked since the 2000 toad mobile.

I'm meh on big a-pillars for safety, you should see how thick they are in a chrysler 300(poorest visibility of any car I've ever driven) or even my GF's Corolla. You shouldn't need to maneuver your head around a pillar to successfully negotiate a turn, it's getting to that point.

Well the visibility of the Challenger will likely be very similar to the 300, since they use the same basic frame, with the Challenger being ever-so-slightly shortened.
So we know, that the rear seats in the Challenger will likely be more comfortable than in the Mustang.

True. But with a 60 hp advantage in the R/T over the Mustang, it should still match the 0-60.

ZV

Doesn't it have 75 more hp than the Mustang?

I agree with everyone that these numbers are far from impressive for 375hp. I guess 375hp in a tank isn't too impressive though.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah the Eclipse has totally sucked since the 2000 toad mobile.

I'm meh on big a-pillars for safety, you should see how thick they are in a chrysler 300(poorest visibility of any car I've ever driven) or even my GF's Corolla. You shouldn't need to maneuver your head around a pillar to successfully negotiate a turn, it's getting to that point.

Well the visibility of the Challenger will likely be very similar to the 300, since they use the same basic frame, with the Challenger being ever-so-slightly shortened.
So we know, that the rear seats in the Challenger will likely be more comfortable than in the Mustang.

True. But with a 60 hp advantage in the R/T over the Mustang, it should still match the 0-60.

ZV

Doesn't it have 75 more hp than the Mustang?

I agree with everyone that these numbers are far from impressive for 375hp. I guess 375hp in a tank isn't too impressive though.

Yeah, it is a beautiful tank though. I'd gladly own one over a Mustang even if the Mustang was slightly better performance. I mean, I honestly don't plan on racing, and racing stock would be retarded anyhow. I would enjoy the speed it offered though.
Since I am looking at the R/T model only, and nothing lower, it'll be awhile before I'd get one anyway. As long as my Dakota continues to hold out, I won't need another vehicle. Plan to keep it through college, and through at least my first year in the Army. I'd probably wait till after my first deployment to get a new vehicle. Since that'd end up being a total of a least 2+ years after graduation, that's lookin at 2012 or later. So a few years to work out any issues with the vehicle, maybe a new larger engine, or at least give me the opportunity to look at models that are a few years old.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: kalrith

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: ayabe
Yeah the Eclipse has totally sucked since the 2000 toad mobile.

I'm meh on big a-pillars for safety, you should see how thick they are in a chrysler 300(poorest visibility of any car I've ever driven) or even my GF's Corolla. You shouldn't need to maneuver your head around a pillar to successfully negotiate a turn, it's getting to that point.

Well the visibility of the Challenger will likely be very similar to the 300, since they use the same basic frame, with the Challenger being ever-so-slightly shortened.
So we know, that the rear seats in the Challenger will likely be more comfortable than in the Mustang.

True. But with a 60 hp advantage in the R/T over the Mustang, it should still match the 0-60.

ZV

Doesn't it have 75 more hp than the Mustang?

I agree with everyone that these numbers are far from impressive for 375hp. I guess 375hp in a tank isn't too impressive though.

Mustang Bullitt has 315. Was thinking of that since that's what Edmunds compared it to, but you're right, the regular GT has 300.

ZV

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I paid $22,900 for my Maxima brand new...it had 3 miles on it when I bought it.

...in 2003. This is 2008. You need to compare what is here, now. Otherwise people could compare their $4500 L88 Corvette to an $12k Aveo. Though if you want to compare comparably priced cars for that year, the Camaro Z-28 was the about same price and considerably faster than your Maxima at $22,700 and doing the 1/4 in 13.8.

ZV's Mustang vs. Challenger comparison was fair. The Mustang does look like a faster and better value than the Challenger. But your comparison isn't.

 

[EightySix Four]

Meh, my brand new turbo four banger kicks the Challenger R/T's ass, and looks as good to me (Sky Redline).

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Meh, my brand new turbo four banger kicks the Challenger R/T's ass, and looks as good to me (Sky Redline).

way different class of cars. Light and nimble versus muscular tank. The Challenger is actually a little fat for its class too, but the point stands. Muscle rarely races alongside those lightweight cars. Quite a few small four bangers will blow away muscle.

 

[EightySix Four]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
Meh, my brand new turbo four banger kicks the Challenger R/T's ass, and looks as good to me (Sky Redline).

way different class of cars. Light and nimble versus muscular tank. The Challenger is actually a little fat for its class too, but the point stands. Muscle rarely races alongside those lightweight cars. Quite a few small four bangers will blow away muscle.

Price range is similar enough that I would have been tempted to get the Challenger vs. my Sky. When you're looking for a performance machine on a specific budget, all these cars run together, whether light and nimble (STi, Evo, Sky RL, Solstice GXP, R32) or big and muscular (Challenger, 'Stang, G8 GT). They're all comparable to me. I have more performance (in the straights and twisties), equal styling, and less cargo/passenger pass. Good trade off to me.

Cost > "class"

 

[sniperruff]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
All I gatta say is that the Callenger looks much better than the stang

i agree whole-heartedly but when you see minivans speeding past you it's pretty embarrassing in the V6 challenger.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: zerocool84
All I gatta say is that the Callenger looks much better than the stang

i agree whole-heartedly but when you see minivans speeding past you it's pretty embarrassing in the V6 challenger.

But nobody will be paying attention to the minivan because they will all be looking at the sweet challenger which is all the v6 buyers care about.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: thedarkwolf

Originally posted by: sniperruff

Originally posted by: zerocool84
All I gatta say is that the Callenger looks much better than the stang

i agree whole-heartedly but when you see minivans speeding past you it's pretty embarrassing in the V6 challenger.

But nobody will be paying attention to the minivan because they will all be looking at the sweet challenger which is all the v6 buyers care about.

Exactly......people mostly buy for looks. Hell look at all the people buying the Charger/300. They aren't great cars but people buy them cus of the "coolness" factor.

 

[Raduque]

Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Too bad this isn't it. Like I've said before, it looks great but with gas prices hovering at $4/gallon you aren't going to woo people into a 2 door coupe that gets 20mpg at best.

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Too bad this isn't it. Like I've said before, it looks great but with gas prices hovering at $4/gallon you aren't going to woo people into a 2 door coupe that gets 20mpg at best.

People still buy Mustang......

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Too bad this isn't it. Like I've said before, it looks great but with gas prices hovering at $4/gallon you aren't going to woo people into a 2 door coupe that gets 20mpg at best.

People still buy Mustang......

The V6. The V8 still sells well below V6 levels.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Cutlass S had 330whp factory. The 442 was underrated at 350hp. I rebuilt the engine when the car was 30 to 350hp. It also had a lot of restorative body work done to it. Probably replaced about 100lb of steel with 20lb of kitty hair and bondo when I bought it. Those numbers are with no traction, if I could've ever gotten it to hook, it would've likely been even faster.

Also, safety features are overrated. I know the challenger was cut down from the charger/300 platform, but still - there's no reason why it should weigh just a thousand pounds lighter than my 4x4.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

...but then it's AT, where if it's American, it's heavy slow and will break down, right?

Both have an as-tested price of $38k, putting them in the realm of the SRT-8 Challenger. Not the $29k R/T nor the $22k SE. Compare apples to apples.

:thumbsup:

 

[zerocool84]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Too bad this isn't it. Like I've said before, it looks great but with gas prices hovering at $4/gallon you aren't going to woo people into a 2 door coupe that gets 20mpg at best.

People still buy Mustang......

The V6. The V8 still sells well below V6 levels.

And I looked at the MPG for both cars and the V6 and V8 Challenger gets the same gas mileage as their Mustang counterparts.

 

[evident]

thats about as fast as my mom's v6 accord

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Raduque
Goodnight in the daytime! Those cars are about 800lb too heavy.

My 40 year old Cutlass was 3 times the size of those Challengers and only weighed 3500lb. With 350hp it would smoke 60 in 5 flat and the quarter in mid 13s.


I do love the styling on those bad boys. The camaro performance looks more promising, but I'm not a fan of the styling. It looks like a production-size HotWheels.

Well perhaps you haven't heard of all these new safety standards that are out now-a-days that make cars heavier. Also I don't know of any Cutlass that was that fast stock. Also it's cut from a super heavy chassis. They should have built it from the ground up but it would have cost them money they didn't have. Chrysler needs something to sell well.

Too bad this isn't it. Like I've said before, it looks great but with gas prices hovering at $4/gallon you aren't going to woo people into a 2 door coupe that gets 20mpg at best.

People still buy Mustang......

The V6. The V8 still sells well below V6 levels.

And I looked at the MPG for both cars and the V6 and V8 Challenger gets the same gas mileage as their Mustang counterparts.

I'm not sure where you got your mpg numbers from. According to fueleconomy.gov the 2008 Challenger V8 (they don't have the V6) is estimated at 13/18 and requires premium gas. The 2008 Mustang GT automatic (to keep it an apples-to-apples comparison) gets 15/22 and can use regular gas. The site's estimated annual fuel costs are $3982 for the Challenger and $3119 for the Mustang GT. In other words the gas cost for the Challenger will be 27.7% more than for the Mustang GT.

Edit: Even the ShelbyGT500 gets an estimated 14/20 mpg and has an estimated annual fuel cost of $3731.

Edit2: It looks like fueleconomy.gov only has numbers for the 6.1L engine, so that makes a little more sense.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: kalrith
I'm not sure where you got your mpg numbers from. According to fueleconomy.gov the 2008 Challenger V8 (they don't have the V6) is estimated at 13/18 and requires premium gas. The 2008 Mustang GT automatic (to keep it an apples-to-apples comparison) gets 15/22 and can use regular gas. The site's estimated annual fuel costs are $3982 for the Challenger and $3119 for the Mustang GT. In other words the gas cost for the Challenger will be 27.7% more than for the Mustang GT.

Edit: Even the ShelbyGT500 gets an estimated 14/20 mpg and has an estimated annual fuel cost of $3731.

Edit2: It looks like fueleconomy.gov only has numbers for the 6.1L engine, so that makes a little more sense.

All 2008 Challengers were SRT-8s. There were no SE nor R/T trim levels.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I paid $22,900 for my Maxima brand new...it had 3 miles on it when I bought it.

...in 2003. This is 2008. You need to compare what is here, now. Otherwise people could compare their $4500 L88 Corvette to an $12k Aveo. Though if you want to compare comparably priced cars for that year, the Camaro Z-28 was the about same price and considerably faster than your Maxima at $22,700 and doing the 1/4 in 13.8.

ZV's Mustang vs. Challenger comparison was fair. The Mustang does look like a faster and better value than the Challenger. But your comparison isn't.

not to mention nissan was blowing out maximas that year as the (new, bigger, maxima-based) altima had already come out

Originally posted by: crazySOB297

Price range is similar enough that I would have been tempted to get the Challenger vs. my Sky. When you're looking for a performance machine on a specific budget, all these cars run together, whether light and nimble (STi, Evo, Sky RL, Solstice GXP, R32) or big and muscular (Challenger, 'Stang, G8 GT). They're all comparable to me. I have more performance (in the straights and twisties), equal styling, and less cargo/passenger pass. Good trade off to me.

Cost > "class"

sti is 3400 lbs, mustang gt manual is 3450 lbs.

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Exactly......people mostly buy for looks. Hell look at all the people buying the Charger/300. They aren't great cars but people buy them cus of the "coolness" factor.

the problem with the 300 is that way too many of them were sold with the 2.7 and plastic hubcaps.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
the problem with the 300 is that way too many of them were sold with the 2.7 and plastic hubcaps.

The 2.7+hubcap trim was definitely rental and fleet fodder. But hey, some people want a big car to sit in 5MPH traffic in...