Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
CMG

Dodge Challenger performance times

26 posts in this topic

Some of the SRT8 cars have had poor times at the tracks when they came out compared to what was expected, but the R/T cars don't seem to have the same issue..

One poster- Dodgetony - Bought a new Challenger R/T 5.7 Hemi automatic on Thursday, raced it on Sunday, BONE STOCK, and it ran a 1.94 60', 13.12 @ 108+....

Those *SHOULD* be SRT8 type numbers...

Here's the actual car, he's from Ohio

th_DCP_1352.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just think of what those numbers could be if it didn't weigh 4100 pounds.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This car could be running 15s and I'd still like it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat unrelated... These things look absolutely huge in person. It looks so much smaller in pictures. I was surprised at its size. The Mustang looks like a compact in comparison.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was riding along with one this morning- what a fricking breath of fresh air, desing-wise. I actually uttered 'Damn!' when I crept up on it in traffic. It was an orange R/T and it looked fantastic. BTW- did not look 'huge' to my eye at all, but I have no doubt the Challenger's lack of a 'diving' and pinched nose and a recognizable amount of decklid foster this impression. Great F'ing job, ChryCo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW- did not look 'huge' to my eye at all, but I have no doubt the Challenger's lack of a 'diving' and pinched nose and a recognizable amount of decklid foster this impression.

Speaking for myself, those traits had no effect on my opinion of it looking huge. It's a large car by itself, no doubt, and far larger than the Mustang. If you consider history, this is no surprise considering past differences in classification. However, the Mustang, as well as the new Camaro, are basically it's only competition and such a vast difference is size is surprising in my eyes.

Granted, as you can see, the vehicle of which I drive is a mere 174" in length, so anything looks big after stepping out of the driver's seat. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking for myself, those traits had no effect on my opinion of it looking huge. It's a large car by itself, no doubt, and far larger than the Mustang. If you consider history, this is no surprise considering past differences in classification. However, the Mustang, as well as the new Camaro, are basically it's only competition and such a vast difference is size is surprising in my eyes.

Granted, as you can see, the vehicle of which I drive is a mere 174" in length, so anything looks big after stepping out of the driver's seat. :P

The Camaro and the Challenger will BOTH be larger than a Mustang, but both will be "more car" as well.

The Mustang will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper, but you'll get what you pay for also. The Mustang will be less refined than the Camaro or Challenger.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"Speaking for myself, those traits had no effect on my opinion of it looking huge. It's a large car by itself, no doubt, and far larger than the Mustang. If you consider history, this is no surprise considering past differences in classification. However, the Mustang, as well as the new Camaro, are basically it's only competition and such a vast difference is size is surprising in my eyes."<<

There were no 'past differences' in classification (both were 'pony cars') and almost no difference in size :

1970 Challenger : wheelbase : 110, overall length: 191"

1970 Mustang : wheelbase : 108, overall length: 187"

OK- there's a 4" difference there, but that's nothing, IMO. Today the difference is noticable, agreed: 9" in wheelbase, 10" in overall length more for the Challenger. Meh- doesn't bother me either way- I struggle to imagine that 10" would ever be a 'break' point for a potential buyer, but I read that same claim here numerous times (usually by the unhinged, but stiill).

And yes - 174" is distressingly tiny.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Speaking for myself, those traits had no effect on my opinion of it looking huge. It's a large car by itself, no doubt, and far larger than the Mustang. If you consider history, this is no surprise considering past differences in classification. However, the Mustang, as well as the new Camaro, are basically it's only competition and such a vast difference is size is surprising in my eyes."<<

There were no 'past differences' in classification (both were 'pony cars') and almost no difference in size :

1970 Challenger : wheelbase : 110, overall length: 191"

1970 Mustang : wheelbase : 108, overall length: 187"

OK- there's a 4" difference there, but that's nothing, IMO. Today the difference is noticable, agreed: 9" in wheelbase, 10" in overall length more for the Challenger. Meh- doesn't bother me either way- I struggle to imagine that 10" would ever be a 'break' point for a potential buyer, but I read that same claim here numerous times (usually by the unhinged, but stiill).

And yes - 174" is distressingly tiny.

I think 10 inches could definitely make or break a deal. About 190 inches is as big as a car as I would want, I think. The GTO is pretty much as big as I would want right now, and I certainly wouldn't want something as big as the Challenger. The Challenger is less than 3 inches shorter than the 95 Eight-Eight LSS I drive on campus, and that car is huge!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>"The GTO is pretty much as big as I would want right now, and I certainly wouldn't want something as big as the Challenger."<<

Challenger : 191" long, GTO : 190" long. 10"es may 'make or break' it for you, but does 1" ??

Edited by balthazar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"Speaking for myself, those traits had no effect on my opinion of it looking huge. It's a large car by itself, no doubt, and far larger than the Mustang. If you consider history, this is no surprise considering past differences in classification. However, the Mustang, as well as the new Camaro, are basically it's only competition and such a vast difference is size is surprising in my eyes."<<

There were no 'past differences' in classification (both were 'pony cars') and almost no difference in size :

1970 Challenger : wheelbase : 110, overall length: 191"

1970 Mustang : wheelbase : 108, overall length: 187"

OK- there's a 4" difference there, but that's nothing, IMO. Today the difference is noticable, agreed: 9" in wheelbase, 10" in overall length more for the Challenger. Meh- doesn't bother me either way- I struggle to imagine that 10" would ever be a 'break' point for a potential buyer, but I read that same claim here numerous times (usually by the unhinged, but stiill).

And yes - 174" is distressingly tiny.

True. For some odd reason, I always think of the Challenger as more of a 'muscle car' like the GTO's, Torinos, and Chargers of the day. My mistake. :P

Motive-Dodge-Challenger-Mustang-GT500-08

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"The GTO is pretty much as big as I would want right now, and I certainly wouldn't want something as big as the Challenger."<<

Challenger : 191" long, GTO : 190" long. 10"es may 'make or break' it for you, but does 1" ??

The 2009 Challenger is 197" long, is it not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2009 Challenger is 197" long, is it not?

Yes...197.7, 116 inch wheelbase. I'd call it a full size coupe...whatever category it is, I love it...really stands out amongst the FWD generica that dominates the car market today.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoopsie- got the '70 and the '09 mixed up above. Sorry. 197" is correct for the '09 - so the difference 'twixt it & the GTO is 7", not merely 1".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoopsie- got the '70 and the '09 mixed up above. Sorry. 197" is correct for the '09 - so the difference 'twixt it & the GTO is 7", not merely 1".

The Challenger is wider also, I think..though I didn't look up those dimensions. The new Camaro is pretty close to the GTO in size, I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>>"The GTO is pretty much as big as I would want right now, and I certainly wouldn't want something as big as the Challenger."<<

Challenger : 191" long, GTO : 190" long. 10"es may 'make or break' it for you, but does 1" ??

Where did you find that the Challenger is 191" long? Dodge.com lists the Challenger as 197.7" inches long. That's almost 8" longer than the GTO (189.8")

EDIT: just saw your second post above. GTO is 72.5" wide compared to 75.7" for the Challenger. Again, the GTO is plenty roomy inside and the Challenger's excess width seems excessive, though the Camaro is also wide at 75.5" (190.4" long).

For comparison, the BMW 7-Series (outgoing model) is 198.0 inches long and 74.9" wide. Challenger is wide and just slightly shorter... I think that's too big considering the 7-Series is a big car.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the Alpha Camaro is close in size to the 3-Series BMW coupe. 108.7 inch wheelbase and 181.1 overall length. Even if the current Camaro (same wheelbase) were to cut down the overhangs to the BMW's level, it would be a bit tidier. ~184.7" seems like a much better package to me, and would save weight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a Camaro and Challenger in similar colors.

I just think the Challenger is a much cleaner looking car....?

4812499-dodge.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a Camaro and Challenger in similar colors.

I just think the Challenger is a much cleaner looking car....?

4812499-dodge.jpg

I would have to agree. The Challenger is a much " cleaner " looking design. The Camaro looks chunky compared to it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Challenger is good-looking, no doubt. I was skeptical until I saw one (actually two) in person. The proportions are correct--but the thing grows in scale quickly as you walk closer to it. Even my wife's Malibu Maxx looks kinda small next to a new Challenger, while my Neon is downright puny.

Interior is better than I thought it would be.

Wish it weren't a two-ton-plus behemoth.

Haven't driven one yet, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw my first two Challengers last night at a dealer. It is HUGE. And $45k is rather ridiculous. I realize it has great performance and such, but the Camaro is a much better deal and has more power.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 40 years I've been driving, I've never owned a Ford (!) but I have to admit that of the three current "pony cars", the Mustang appeals to me the most. I like its styling and its "bang for the buck" factor. Being a family guy and pinching pennies, I ain't really in the market for such a car anyway. But if I had dough lying around to purchase a fun car, I'd be looking at something old, preferably a sleeper of some sort.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0