silvrsvt Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 And they want 38K for it! :rolleyes: http://www.autoblog.com/2008/02/06/chicago...t8-live-reveal/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixt9coug Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Its probably a conservative estimate given that its a manufacturer number, but yeah shes a porker. Whats the Ford official 1/4 mile estimate for the Mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Isn't the Mustang GT pretty much as fast as that car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) Some individuals jump all over the Mustang GT for having only 300hp, well, it looks like 300hp in the current GT will hang with Dodge's top of the line Challenger. So, I guess 300hp is enough for the base V8 in the Mustang. Edited February 7, 2008 by 02MustangGT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 425 HP WTF, the Shelby GT500 was rated at 500 HP when it was released. Isint it 540 HP now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atomcat68 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 A lot of people forget that it's not just HP, It's also weight that determine how fast a car goes. A lotus Exige is one of the fastest cars on the market and does this with a 185 hp 4 cylnder. - it weighs only 2000 pounds! I'd also hate to be in a collision while driving one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) Well I ran a 13.6 at 104 stock with my 07GT. I think someone has run a 12.99 stock with one. I couldn't beat 13.3 with a chip and a tune on this one, but that was in the typical high-humidity of this area in the summer. Funny thing is, I'm a die-hard Mustang guy and love the track and mods and blah blah blah and have had a bunch of Mustangs(and cars like an RX7TT R1) some with superchargers, but I really don't care what the Challenger runs in the quarter mile. A lot of people that do the most worrying and bitching don't drive sports cars (usually don't even drive decent basic cars). Many are on the internet, driving something like a $500 94 accord with 200k miles, bitching and moaning about porsches and mustangs and skylines. The Challenger is still a fucking cool car. A big pig of a coupe with plenty of power. Its the anti-ricer, even if some dumbass wasted a ton of money building a fast civic, its just a faster piece of shit, nothing more....No matter what you do to some piece of crap, its not a Mustang, or a Challenger, or a Vette. Some things in life are just better, regardless of some static number in a magazine, which is as close as the loudest whiners come to these cars in the first place. Edited February 7, 2008 by kevinb120 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinb120 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Some individuals jump all over the Mustang GT for having only 300hp, well, it looks like 300hp in the current GT will hang with Dodge's top of the line Challenger. So, I guess 300hp is enough for the base V8 in the Mustang. Don't confuse some sort of reasoning from some of those people with an insane sense of jealousy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 425 HP WTF, the Shelby GT500 was rated at 500 HP when it was released. Isint it 540 HP now? GT500 is still 500 HP. GT500KR is 540. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Isn't the Mustang GT pretty much as fast as that car? Almost. If I'm not mistaken they are a few ticks slower. Having said that Dodge will sell 'em. Even if I'm not a fan of the overall interior/exterior design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 i have seen bone stock 2005+ GTs run 13.0-13.3 at 104-106mph. That was in wisconsin at 70degree clear day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 ok lets not compare the SRT8 to the Mustang GT, lets compare the upcoming 5.7L R/T to the Mustang GT.....if the Mustang almost matches the SRT8.....the R/T will not stand a chance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wescoent Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Challenger is still a fucking cool car. A big pig of a coupe with plenty of power. Its the anti-ricer, even if some dumbass wasted a ton of money building a fast civic, its just a faster piece of shit, nothing more....No matter what you do to some piece of crap, its not a Mustang, or a Challenger, or a Vette. Some things in life are just better, regardless of some static number in a magazine, which is as close as the loudest whiners come to these cars in the first place. Dead on. I like the Mustang as much as anyone else, but let's give credit where credit is due. I have a fantasy of slapping on some graphite rims and a catback on a black Challenger... truly the Anti-Prius if there ever was one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 While I agree its a cool car, but not as cool as a 25K Mustang GT that goes just as fast :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGallun Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 ok lets not compare the SRT8 to the Mustang GT, lets compare the upcoming 5.7L R/T to the Mustang GT.....if the Mustang almost matches the SRT8.....the R/T will not stand a chance... as the SRT8 doesnt stand a chance against a GT500.. so ya, we win, Dodge looks nice.. but, overall loses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Are you guys magazine racing again? Wait till the owners have them and then see what the real world times are. Remember, heavier stock SRT8's Chargers, 300's and Magnum are hitting low 13's and high 12's regardless of what is advertised. Modded ones are doing low 11's with a couple in the high 10's . Not bad for a full size land yacht/brick/station wagon with room for your entire family's luggage (that don't have a whole lot of aftermarket support). Standard stock R/T times are generally high 13's. In the end, is a Mustang going to be faster tit for tat? I would hope so. The Challenger is almost a full foot longer then a Mustang and a few inches wider, hence your added weight. In the meantime, stop armchair drag racing and wait and see what really happens on the strip, especially later this summer when a manual tranny is available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 (edited) Are you guys magazine racing again? Wait till the owners have them and then see what the real world times are. Remember, heavier stock SRT8's Chargers, 300's and Magnum are hitting low 13's and high 12's regardless of what is advertised. Modded ones are doing low 11's with a couple in the high 10's . Not bad for a full size land yacht/brick/station wagon with room for your entire family's luggage (that don't have a whole lot of aftermarket support). Standard stock R/T times are generally high 13's. In the end, is a Mustang going to be faster tit for tat? I would hope so. The Challenger is almost a full foot longer then a Mustang and a few inches wider, hence your added weight. In the meantime, stop armchair drag racing and wait and see what really happens on the strip, especially later this summer when a manual tranny is available. I was just looking up the 1/4 mile times for STOCK 06/07 Mustang GT, Mustang/Shelby GT500, 300SRT8. I expect the Challenger SRT8 to be closer to the Shelby,and the R/T to be on par with the Mustang GT.....then again they could be slower than the 300s??? http://www.dragtimes.com/compare2.php?make...Name=Compare%21 Edited February 7, 2008 by timmm55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Dead on. I like the Mustang as much as anyone else, but let's give credit where credit is due. I have a fantasy of slapping on some graphite rims and a catback on a black Challenger... truly the Anti-Prius if there ever was one. I for one love it...way better than the Chebbie, and the Stang needs its refresh as it IS starting to look long in the tooth....rep told us that the refresh is similar to the concept by guig....( not going to spend an hour researching the Italian equivilent of Brown ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Mustang has been out for awhile, we're kind of used to it. But if it had just come out now, I think it would look smoother and sleeker than than Challenger. It's tidier all around....but hey I'm biased! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 They are both great looking machines. They took the best from each individual's lineage and made some fine automobiles. If I had my choice, I'd most likely get a Challenger...I do like its lines better. But then again, a year or so from now when we see a refreshed Mustang, I may change my mind. But I do love big steel. I should take those two picture you posted and adjust them in size and wheelbase to show actual size comparisons (if it has not been done already). I think the Chally is going to dwarf the Mustang. Not the best for weight obviously, but it will be one imposing machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 They are both great looking machines. They took the best from each individual's lineage and made some fine automobiles. If I had my choice, I'd most likely get a Challenger...I do like its lines better. But then again, a year or so from now when we see a refreshed Mustang, I may change my mind. But I do love big steel. I should take those two picture you posted and adjust them in size and wheelbase to show actual size comparisons (if it has not been done already). I think the Chally is going to dwarf the Mustang. Not the best for weight obviously, but it will be one imposing machine. black chally for me...ford drops an irs unit under the stang then i might change my mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Are you guys magazine racing again? Wait till the owners have them and then see what the real world times are. Remember, heavier stock SRT8's Chargers, 300's and Magnum are hitting low 13's and high 12's regardless of what is advertised. Modded ones are doing low 11's with a couple in the high 10's . Not bad for a full size land yacht/brick/station wagon with room for your entire family's luggage (that don't have a whole lot of aftermarket support). Standard stock R/T times are generally high 13's. In the end, is a Mustang going to be faster tit for tat? I would hope so. The Challenger is almost a full foot longer then a Mustang and a few inches wider, hence your added weight. In the meantime, stop armchair drag racing and wait and see what really happens on the strip, especially later this summer when a manual tranny is available. The Challenger is not a few inches wider, sorry. F/R track is around 63" for both the Mustang and Challenger. It is however around 10" longer which is not a foot but close. So yeah, it's a longer and taller, but that's nothing to brag about. As far as your "magazine racer" comments, are you the only person allowed to type 0-60 and 1/4 mile times? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
range Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 ok lets not compare the SRT8 to the Mustang GT, lets compare the upcoming 5.7L R/T to the Mustang GT.....if the Mustang almost matches the SRT8.....the R/T will not stand a chance... EXACTLY, this is the $40K+ SRT8, the one with the $2,100 gas-guzzler tax and the one that has to run Premium fuel and displace 6.1 liters. Funny to see that the base Mustang GT running regular fuel and just 4.6 liters gets similar numbers. And it starts at just $26K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) The Challenger is not a few inches wider, sorry. F/R track is around 63" for both the Mustang and Challenger. It is however around 10" longer which is not a foot but close. reread my post.....let me quote it for you. The Challenger is almost a full foot longer then a Mustang and a few inches wider, hence your added weight. 10 inches would be almost a foot as I stated. The width is actually almost two inches more (not a "few" as I stated off the top of my head :rolleyes: ). Note I spoke of width, not track. (Since you want to cut hairs, yes the track is a bit wider for the Challenger as well, neglibly noted 4/5th of an inch up front and 3/5th of an inch out back.) Heaven forbid should someone try and explain why a larger car might be heavier. Edited February 8, 2008 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02MustangGT Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Gotcha Intrep. However, I don't need for you to point out why a larger car might be heavier. And I also don't need for you to point out 1/4 mile times and then call out others for doing the same exact thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.