Dodge Challenger First Drive

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Originally posted by: shabby

Ya but does the mustang got a hemi? I thought so...

nearly all 4-stroke reciprocating piston engines have had hemispherical combustion chambers for over 40 years. chrysler was first, and kicked so much ass, everyone in the world except HD had done the same by the late 60's.

Yup, my Camry has a "hemi".

Pent roof 4v is a type of 'hemi' and is actually better than a true hemi.

The 3,665 lbs of a 03 Cobra doesn't seem so bad lately with all these new 'performance' cars coming out over 4,000 lbs... esp given the ease of almost doubling it's power output.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: The Boston Dangler
Originally posted by: shabby

Ya but does the mustang got a hemi? I thought so...

nearly all 4-stroke reciprocating piston engines have had hemispherical combustion chambers for over 40 years. chrysler was first, and kicked so much ass, everyone in the world except HD had done the same by the late 60's.

Yup, my Camry has a "hemi".

Pent roof 4v is a type of 'hemi' and is actually better than a true hemi.

The 3,665 lbs of a 03 Cobra doesn't seem so bad lately with all these new 'performance' cars coming out over 4,000 lbs... esp given the ease of almost doubling it's power output.

Your Cobra >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any US performance car besides the Viper and Vette (I know your Cobra is faster than a stock Viper/Vette, aside from perhaps the ZR1). The new Mustang, new Challenger, new SRT-4, it's all pretty disappointing. At least the Mustang is still priced right. GM has been doing great things lately, so I have good hope that the new Camaro will actually kick some ass.
 

Raduque

Lifer
Aug 22, 2004
13,140
138
106
4200lb? Wow, that's sad. My 68 Oldsmobile didn't weigh that much and it was a huge boat with miles of hood and side clearance issues in normal parking spots.

Edit: I still want one. Goddamn that's hawt.
 

Azelrok

Member
Dec 10, 2005
42
0
0
This is exactly why I think the new camaro will suck too. Its being built on the Zeta platform and to get an idea how much a zeta based sedan weighs just look at the Pontiac G8. Numbers indicate the car will weigh ~4000 pounds. The new camaro will probably weigh the same or around 3900 pounds.

The new Camaro will probably have the same performance numbers as the current GTO. So basically prolly a quarter mile in the low 13s. (If GM sticks their LS2 under the hood).

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
This is incredibly poorly timed. I think it will sell well to a certain crowd, but it's not a large enough niche to make a success out of. It's also far too similar to their other offerings (giant behemoth V8 fuel guzzlers). In other words, it will only siphon sales away from other Dodge SRT models, diluting their existing production capacity and reducing profitability.

A welcome sight would be a ~360bhp Turbo 6 with cylinder deactivation. Goal = 25mpg city, 33mpg highway in regular driving, with a curb weight of ~3400 or so.

Lincoln is ahead of the curve on this idea, dropping the V8s from the lineup. With fuel prices unlikely to ever come down to what was the norm when the Challenger got the green light for production, V8s / guzzlers may start to vanish purely from economic circumstance with no government intervention involved.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,056
12,449
136
pontiac G8 GT >>> challenger SRT8, as tested by edmunds. god knows what the G8 GXP will do.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
This is incredibly poorly timed. I think it will sell well to a certain crowd, but it's not a large enough niche to make a success out of. It's also far too similar to their other offerings (giant behemoth V8 fuel guzzlers). In other words, it will only siphon sales away from other Dodge SRT models, diluting their existing production capacity and reducing profitability.

A welcome sight would be a ~360bhp Turbo 6 with cylinder deactivation. Goal = 25mpg city, 33mpg highway in regular driving, with a curb weight of ~3400 or so.

Lincoln is ahead of the curve on this idea, dropping the V8s from the lineup. With fuel prices unlikely to ever come down to what was the norm when the Challenger got the green light for production, V8s / guzzlers may start to vanish purely from economic circumstance with no government intervention involved.

They have already sold every single 2008, even though they are auto-only.
 

Azelrok

Member
Dec 10, 2005
42
0
0
Well of course, the first year of a brand new (and exciting model) will sell furiously. I have no doubt the Challenger will sell extremely well (during the first year of production). But the way gas is going, and if we do reach 4.00 dollars a gallon for regular (heck might as well say 5.00 now), Ill give the challenger a 3-4 year life cycle and after that, it'll be tossed away.

The G8 only generated 777 sales in March, from all the excitement this car has caused on the internet, I thought for sure, it would be selling easily over 4000.


The challenger is a good vehicle to buy and store. It'll be a collector's item for sure!
 

Pariah

Elite Member
Apr 16, 2000
7,357
20
81
The G8 only generated 777 sales in March, from all the excitement this car has caused on the internet, I thought for sure, it would be selling easily over 4000.

It's difficult to sell 4000 cars when you don't have that many to sell. G8's didn't reach the East coast dealers until the end of March. The vehicle dealer locator on Pontiac's website for the GT didn't work until well into April. Not knowing how many cars actually made it to dealers in March makes any conclusions drawn from sales dubious.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
36
91
Originally posted by: shabby
Its funny when you think about it, but 10 years ago 300hp cars were running 13.5 1/4mile times. Now you need over 400hp to run the same times.
Maybe car manufacturers should invest into building lighter cars then building more efficient engines.

20 years ago the 944 Turbo S ran 13.5 in the 1/4 with 247 hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque (according to factory power ratings). Averaged 23 mpg in everyday driving and 26 on the freeway and could run to a documented 170+mph too.

Today's cars are far too heavy. Shoot, the '64 Mustang weighed in at only 2,600 pounds. Of course, if we'd stop demanding 10 speaker stereos, nav systems, 12 way power seats, and more electronic doo-dads (ABS brakes, traction control, driver information centers, 3 zone computer-controlled HVAC, navigation systems, electronically-variable suspension, etc) than we know what to do with we might actually have lighter cars.

ZV
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shabby
Its funny when you think about it, but 10 years ago 300hp cars were running 13.5 1/4mile times. Now you need over 400hp to run the same times.
Maybe car manufacturers should invest into building lighter cars then building more efficient engines.

20 years ago the 944 Turbo S ran 13.5 in the 1/4 with 247 hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque (according to factory power ratings). Averaged 23 mpg in everyday driving and 26 on the freeway and could run to a documented 170+mph too.

Today's cars are far too heavy. Shoot, the '64 Mustang weighed in at only 2,600 pounds. Of course, if we'd stop demanding 10 speaker stereos, nav systems, 12 way power seats, and more electronic doo-dads (ABS brakes, traction control, driver information centers, 3 zone computer-controlled HVAC, navigation systems, electronically-variable suspension, etc) than we know what to do with we might actually have lighter cars.

ZV

Weight has far more to do with safety design than excessive electronics, but you do have a point. Buy it, strip it out.
 

compman25

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2006
3,767
2
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
This is incredibly poorly timed. I think it will sell well to a certain crowd, but it's not a large enough niche to make a success out of. It's also far too similar to their other offerings (giant behemoth V8 fuel guzzlers). In other words, it will only siphon sales away from other Dodge SRT models, diluting their existing production capacity and reducing profitability.

A welcome sight would be a ~360bhp Turbo 6 with cylinder deactivation. Goal = 25mpg city, 33mpg highway in regular driving, with a curb weight of ~3400 or so.

Lincoln is ahead of the curve on this idea, dropping the V8s from the lineup. With fuel prices unlikely to ever come down to what was the norm when the Challenger got the green light for production, V8s / guzzlers may start to vanish purely from economic circumstance with no government intervention involved.

During the 70's people said the same thing, it was the end of performance cars and big V8's. Well, they were wrong. And they cited the same problems, high gas prices, emissions, safety....All it takes is one manufacturer to make something popular and the others follow. Think 85 Mustang with the roller cam, carb'd 5.0, from there it has gotten better up to this point. Every US manufacturer has big muscle cars. But now everyone wants to make the Pinto's, Gremlins, and Chevettes of this era. But someone in the future will once again make a performance car and the others will all follow and again we'll have another era of muscle cars.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: zerocool84
Originally posted by: shabby
Its funny when you think about it, but 10 years ago 300hp cars were running 13.5 1/4mile times. Now you need over 400hp to run the same times.
Maybe car manufacturers should invest into building lighter cars then building more efficient engines.

It's all about safety and the new safety laws coming out. Cars will just keep getting heavier and heavier. Remember this car's platform is shared with 300/charger/magnum. All large/heavy cars.

I'm sure safety plays a part, but IMO its 116 in wheelbase plays a much bigger part. The new Challenger is supposed to be a performance car, but it's 16.5 feet long, 6'3" wide, and almost 5 feet tall!! WTF were they thinking! That's bigger than some SUV's.

And I know this has already been discussed, but almost all modern engines are Hemi's.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,514
36
91
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shabby
Its funny when you think about it, but 10 years ago 300hp cars were running 13.5 1/4mile times. Now you need over 400hp to run the same times.
Maybe car manufacturers should invest into building lighter cars then building more efficient engines.

20 years ago the 944 Turbo S ran 13.5 in the 1/4 with 247 hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque (according to factory power ratings). Averaged 23 mpg in everyday driving and 26 on the freeway and could run to a documented 170+mph too.

Today's cars are far too heavy. Shoot, the '64 Mustang weighed in at only 2,600 pounds. Of course, if we'd stop demanding 10 speaker stereos, nav systems, 12 way power seats, and more electronic doo-dads (ABS brakes, traction control, driver information centers, 3 zone computer-controlled HVAC, navigation systems, electronically-variable suspension, etc) than we know what to do with we might actually have lighter cars.

ZV

Weight has far more to do with safety design than excessive electronics, but you do have a point. Buy it, strip it out.

Given my druthers, I'd do away with side-impact door beams, airbags, crumple zones, etc. in sportscars too. If I want that risk I ought to be allowed to take it. Mind you, I do drive a Volvo as my daily driver, so I'm not protesting safety, just the fact that it's not up to me to decide.

ZV
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: Arkaign
This is incredibly poorly timed. I think it will sell well to a certain crowd, but it's not a large enough niche to make a success out of. It's also far too similar to their other offerings (giant behemoth V8 fuel guzzlers). In other words, it will only siphon sales away from other Dodge SRT models, diluting their existing production capacity and reducing profitability.

A welcome sight would be a ~360bhp Turbo 6 with cylinder deactivation. Goal = 25mpg city, 33mpg highway in regular driving, with a curb weight of ~3400 or so.

Lincoln is ahead of the curve on this idea, dropping the V8s from the lineup. With fuel prices unlikely to ever come down to what was the norm when the Challenger got the green light for production, V8s / guzzlers may start to vanish purely from economic circumstance with no government intervention involved.

During the 70's people said the same thing, it was the end of performance cars and big V8's. Well, they were wrong. And they cited the same problems, high gas prices, emissions, safety....All it takes is one manufacturer to make something popular and the others follow. Think 85 Mustang with the roller cam, carb'd 5.0, from there it has gotten better up to this point. Every US manufacturer has big muscle cars. But now everyone wants to make the Pinto's, Gremlins, and Chevettes of this era. But someone in the future will once again make a performance car and the others will all follow and again we'll have another era of muscle cars.

This is not the 70s. The fuel crisis then was largely artificial in nature due to OPEC. Today we have two huge emerging markets (China/India), alongside a general economic boom in Asia as a whole, causing massive strain on petroleum supplies globally. It doesn't help that speculators are driving the costs up as well. And the final insult is the freefall of the dollar. Looking at the US economy, our fundamental weaknesses and self-destructive behavior, it's incredibly unlikely that we will ever see gas as cheap on a relative scale as it has historically been. Combine that with the resulting higher prices in every single good and service that depends directly or indirectly on energy for manufacture/transport/storage, and you have a recipe for a new paradigm in the way we think about energy.

Expensive fuel is here to stay, and it will only get worse, even considering inflation. Watch the prices skyrocket through the summer to $4/gallon, and when winter comes, you can bet the oil companies and speculators won't let the price slide much at all, then next summer the push will be for $4.50 or more, then a small slide, then summer '10 push for $5 or more. Again, this is best-case scenario. If something wacky happens with Iran, Pakistan, etc, it will get a lot worse a lot faster. Also check in with the 10-year numbers for China. They're skyrocketing upwards, and will be the world's largest economy in about 7-8 years.

This brings us to domestic car production, and US consumer choices. 'Muscle' cars are a small fraction of sales overall, and you only have to look at the Mustang for a great example of a mass-market car in 'Muscle' clothing. The vast majority of Mustangs are V6s already. The GT, Cobra, etc are pretty rare in comparison. Also look at how many people are posting in threads about how to get the best fuel economy, and more than ever, people are looking at fuel economy numbers when choosing a vehicle. If Ford, Chevy, Dodge don't offer a decent choice, then people will buy imports. China will have vehicles on our roads pretty soon as well, and possibly India as well.

The catalyst will be the differential in options. If consumers have no choice but to buy 300+hp 4,000+lb sub-20mpg land behemoths, then that's what they'll buy. But if company B offers a 220hp 3,000lb 35mpg car that offers equal space, comfort, and performance, then that car will sell much better in this kind of market, all other things being equal.

Anyway, this is a new era, not a blip like the 70s. The 70s were followed by the 80s and cheap oil. The only reason that happened is OPEC opened the taps, and we didn't have to compete with China and India for the dominant supply.
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: shabby
Its funny when you think about it, but 10 years ago 300hp cars were running 13.5 1/4mile times. Now you need over 400hp to run the same times.
Maybe car manufacturers should invest into building lighter cars then building more efficient engines.

20 years ago the 944 Turbo S ran 13.5 in the 1/4 with 247 hp and 250 ft-lbs of torque (according to factory power ratings). Averaged 23 mpg in everyday driving and 26 on the freeway and could run to a documented 170+mph too.

Today's cars are far too heavy. Shoot, the '64 Mustang weighed in at only 2,600 pounds. Of course, if we'd stop demanding 10 speaker stereos, nav systems, 12 way power seats, and more electronic doo-dads (ABS brakes, traction control, driver information centers, 3 zone computer-controlled HVAC, navigation systems, electronically-variable suspension, etc) than we know what to do with we might actually have lighter cars.

ZV

Weight has far more to do with safety design than excessive electronics, but you do have a point. Buy it, strip it out.

Given my druthers, I'd do away with side-impact door beams, airbags, crumple zones, etc. in sportscars too. If I want that risk I ought to be allowed to take it. Mind you, I do drive a Volvo as my daily driver, so I'm not protesting safety, just the fact that it's not up to me to decide.

ZV

Sounds like you need a Caterham or a Westfield. Brand new and devoid of all those safety features you lament! If you want a big engine sports car without saftey, pick a TVR(but be assured you will need a good mechanic...).

You can still get plenty of machines in the UK that allow you to make that choice. I guess the demands of the nanny state in the US mean you have to have 'bags, beams, etc before you can sell a car there?