Challenger SE and R/T times

[Demon-Xanth]

From Edmunds:
R/T

ENGLISHTOWN, New Jersey ? There has been lots of speculation about the speed of the new 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T with its 375-horsepower 5.7-liter V8, and we were able to conduct our own independent testing at Old Bridge Township Raceway Park in Englishtown, New Jersey, the site of the official introduction of the 2009 Dodge Challenger lineup.

This is the very first chance to test the performance of Chrysler's new muscle car in R/T trim. Our data includes 0-60-mph acceleration, quarter-mile performance, braking distance and slalom speed, as well as insight from IL's test-driver.

Chrysler based its introduction of the 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8, R/T and SE at Old Bridge Township Raceway Park, a traditional stop for the NHRA's professional drag-racing championship. Thanks to our portable Racelogic VBOX III testing gear, we were able to use the track for performance testing, although the lack of a suitable plot of pavement precluded skid pad evaluation.

The 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T with its 375-hp 5.7-liter V8 and six-speed manual transmission accelerated to 60 mph in 5.9 seconds (5.5 seconds with 1 foot of rollout like on a drag strip), then reached the quarter-mile in 14.1 seconds at 100.8 mph. In comparison, the 315-hp 2008 Mustang Bullitt we tested late last year with a 4.6-liter V8 and Tremec five-speed manual transmission ran to 60 mph in just 5.2 seconds. The Bullitt also ran a 13.8-second quarter-mile at 102.1 mph.

At 4,041 pounds, the R/T weighs about 100 pounds less than a 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 with a six-speed transmission. In fact the R/T is only fractionally slower to 60 mph than the SRT8's 5.5 seconds (5.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). The difference lies in the higher redline of the SRT8's 425-hp 6.1-liter Hemi, which enables the car to pull past 60 mph in 2nd gear. In comparison, the R/T requires a shift into 3rd gear.

Full performance data is listed below:

Acceleration:
0-30 mph 2.5 seconds
0-45 mph 4.0 seconds
0-60 mph 5.9 seconds
0-75 mph 8.4 seconds
1/4-mile 14.1 seconds at 100.8 mph
0-60 mph with 1 foot of rollout 5.5 seconds

Braking:
30-0 mph 29 feet
60-0 mph 126 feet

Slalom (600 feet) 62.4 mph

SE

ENGLISHTOWN, New Jersey ? The 2009 Dodge Challenger SE is the new, affordable addition to the 2009 Dodge Challenger lineup. Following the official introduction of the 2009 Dodge Challenger SE at Old Bridge Township Raceway Park in Englishtown, New Jersey, we conducted our own independent testing of the entry-level coupe with its 250-horsepower 3.5-liter V6.

The business case for the Dodge Challenger depends on volume sales, not just specialty cars like the 425-hp SRT8 model, and Chrysler believes the Challenger SE can become a mainstream coupe, a two-door alternative to the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 sedans.

This is the very first chance to test the performance of Chrysler's new muscle car with the V6 engine. The data includes 0-60-mph acceleration, quarter-mile performance, braking distance and slalom speed, as well as insight from IL's test driver.

Chrysler based its introduction of the 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8, R/T and SE at Old Bridge Township Raceway Park, a traditional stop for the NHRA's professional drag-racing championship. Thanks to our portable Racelogic VBOX III testing gear, we were able to use the track for performance testing, although the lack of a suitable plot of pavement precluded skid pad evaluation.

The 2009 Dodge Challenger SE with its 250-hp 3.5-liter V6 and four-speed automatic transmission accelerated to 60 mph in 8.1 seconds (7.8 seconds with 1 foot of rollout), then reached the quarter-mile in 16.1 seconds at 88.3 mph.

Full performance data is listed below:

Acceleration:
0-30 mph 3.0 seconds
0-45 mph 5.1 seconds
0-60 mph 8.1 seconds
0-75 mph 12.1 seconds
1/4-mile 16.1 seconds at 88.3 mph
0-60 mph with 1 foot of rollout 7.8 seconds

Braking:
30-0 mph 29 feet
60-0 mph 129 feet

Slalom (600 feet) 59.5 mph

 

[fbrdphreak]

Crikey, what pigs. I'm sorry, but a 4000lb+ coupe? No thanks. Sweet styling, sweet motor, everything is teh crap.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Wow, that's pretty unimpressive.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The SE starts under $22k, and the R/T about $29k, which makes it a rather viable option.

 

[SAWYER]

It is one sweet ass ride, but those numbers are not mind blowing

 

[destrekor]

I'm intrigued to find out why the 2008 SRT8 5-speed auto transmission beats the 2009 SRT8 6-speed manual in every speed/time benchmark.

But, I still drool over these things, and I would love to own one in a few years.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: destrekor
I'm intrigued to find out why the 2008 SRT8 5-speed auto transmission beats the 2009 SRT8 6-speed manual in every speed/time benchmark.

But, I still drool over these things, and I would love to own one in a few years.

They didn't test the SRT8, only the R/T.

 

[SnipeMasterJ13]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Crikey, what pigs. I'm sorry, but a 4000lb+ coupe? No thanks. Sweet styling, sweet motor, everything is teh crap.

You said it so I don't have to.

 

[BassBomb]

Thats like as fast as Camry SE

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: BassBomb
Thats like as fast as Camry SE

But it has all the quality and class of a Dodge :laugh::light:

 

[JulesMaximus]

My 2003 Nissan Maxima is faster. :laugh:

 

[ayabe]

Yeah I really don't understand why they can't drop 400lbs off of it. It's not like a plush luxo mobile or anything. Gimme a blowtorch and some shears and I'll get it done.

 

[JJ650]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
My 2003 Nissan Maxima is faster. :laugh:

I was thinking the same about my '08 TL-S.

I guess you're paying a lot of dough for a decent engine to push a bloated vehicle down the road. At least it's killer looking, IMHO.
Makes the G8 GT look even better as a purchase for V8, RWD fun car.

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: destrekor
I'm intrigued to find out why the 2008 SRT8 5-speed auto transmission beats the 2009 SRT8 6-speed manual in every speed/time benchmark.

But, I still drool over these things, and I would love to own one in a few years.

They didn't test the SRT8, only the R/T.

At 4,041 pounds, the R/T weighs about 100 pounds less than a 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 with a six-speed transmission. In fact the R/T is only fractionally slower to 60 mph than the SRT8's 5.5 seconds (5.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). The difference lies in the higher redline of the SRT8's 425-hp 6.1-liter Hemi, which enables the car to pull past 60 mph in 2nd gear. In comparison, the R/T requires a shift into 3rd gear.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: JJ650

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
My 2003 Nissan Maxima is faster. :laugh:

I was thinking the same about my '08 TL-S.

I guess you're paying a lot of dough for a decent engine to push a bloated vehicle down the road. At least it's killer looking, IMHO.
Makes the G8 GT look even better as a purchase for V8, RWD fun car.

You realize that your TL-S is about $10k more than the R/T, and is NOT faster than the R/T. If you're comparing it to the SE, then yes, it is faster, but also almost twice the price. The current Maxima is priced the same as the R/T, and is half a second slower.

Sorry, but if you're looking at the SE performance, you have to compare the SE prices. The SE will be cross shopped with the Mustang V6 convertible and likely widely used by rental car companies and is for people that just want the looks. The R/T will be cross shopped with the Mustang GT and isn't a bad deal for bang for the buck.

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

TL-S:
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...cura_tl_type_s_feature
Maxima SV
http://www.caranddriver.com/co...ma+SV+-+Spec+Sheet.pdf

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.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: destrekor
I'm intrigued to find out why the 2008 SRT8 5-speed auto transmission beats the 2009 SRT8 6-speed manual in every speed/time benchmark.

But, I still drool over these things, and I would love to own one in a few years.

They didn't test the SRT8, only the R/T.

At 4,041 pounds, the R/T weighs about 100 pounds less than a 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 with a six-speed transmission. In fact the R/T is only fractionally slower to 60 mph than the SRT8's 5.5 seconds (5.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). The difference lies in the higher redline of the SRT8's 425-hp 6.1-liter Hemi, which enables the car to pull past 60 mph in 2nd gear. In comparison, the R/T requires a shift into 3rd gear.

Yes I read that. He thinks this was the SRT8 manual vs the SRT8 auto. They tested the R/T manual.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
The SE starts under $22k, and the R/T about $29k, which makes it a rather viable option.

And the V6 Mustang, which starts at $19k, runs 0-60 in 7.0.
The V8 Mustang, which starts at $26k, runs 0-60 in 4.9 (per Road & Track's numbers, probably around 5.2-5.3 with no rollout).

Even the SRT8 is only barely giving the Mustang a run for its money despite a massive horsepower advantage.

I'm really hoping that the Camaro runs harder than the Challenger does.

ZV

 

[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.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

The ginormous A pillars are for crash safety. The Camaro's curb weight appears to be about 3750.

...but it is well documented that I've thought most all cars are way too heavy today. And I don't mean by a few hundred pounds. My winner for the "biggest fatass" award still goes to the Eclipse by trying to be a sport compact while being in the 3500LB range.
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...shi_eclipse_gt_feature

 

[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.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: RagingBITCH

Originally posted by: destrekor
I'm intrigued to find out why the 2008 SRT8 5-speed auto transmission beats the 2009 SRT8 6-speed manual in every speed/time benchmark.

But, I still drool over these things, and I would love to own one in a few years.

They didn't test the SRT8, only the R/T.

At 4,041 pounds, the R/T weighs about 100 pounds less than a 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 with a six-speed transmission. In fact the R/T is only fractionally slower to 60 mph than the SRT8's 5.5 seconds (5.2 seconds with 1 foot of rollout). The difference lies in the higher redline of the SRT8's 425-hp 6.1-liter Hemi, which enables the car to pull past 60 mph in 2nd gear. In comparison, the R/T requires a shift into 3rd gear.

Yes I read that. He thinks this was the SRT8 manual vs the SRT8 auto. They tested the R/T manual.

I don't think that at all.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[zerocool84]

All I gatta say is that the Callenger looks much better than the stang

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: JJ650

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
My 2003 Nissan Maxima is faster. :laugh:

I was thinking the same about my '08 TL-S.

I guess you're paying a lot of dough for a decent engine to push a bloated vehicle down the road. At least it's killer looking, IMHO.
Makes the G8 GT look even better as a purchase for V8, RWD fun car.

You realize that your TL-S is about $10k more than the R/T, and is NOT faster than the R/T. If you're comparing it to the SE, then yes, it is faster, but also almost twice the price. The current Maxima is priced the same as the R/T, and is half a second slower.

Sorry, but if you're looking at the SE performance, you have to compare the SE prices. The SE will be cross shopped with the Mustang V6 convertible and likely widely used by rental car companies and is for people that just want the looks. The R/T will be cross shopped with the Mustang GT and isn't a bad deal for bang for the buck.

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

TL-S:
http://www.caranddriver.com/re...cura_tl_type_s_feature
Maxima SV
http://www.caranddriver.com/co...ma+SV+-+Spec+Sheet.pdf

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.

I paid $22,900 for my Maxima brand new...it had 3 miles on it when I bought it.