Blueblood Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) No way will a Mustang GT beat this, the same engine in heavier 300C's and Chargers is faster. For it's price and power it should be faster, don't know why they couldn't put a stick it in it.. I'd compare this to the GT500, if they come out with a cheaper base model with a 4.7 or 5.7, that will be the GT competitor. Either way, the 2010 GT will be faster than this... Edited February 8, 2008 by Blueblood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) 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. None of us has driven a Challenger in the 1/4 mile yet...there's no telling what the production vehicle is capable of. If you think I'm trying to act "holier then thou", I'm not. I'm quoting real world figures for cars with the same engine on the same platform that I have driven in the real world. Not in the pages of some magazine in a prepro vehicle as others in this thread have been...if I'm calling out others as you stated, those would be the ones. What I'm saying (again) is don't go by manufacturer or magazine figures, because they have been quite a bit off for the same engine and platform in heavier cars. Wait for the real world. ...the same engine in heavier 300C's and Chargers is faster. Well, you sorta said in one sentence what took me a few paragraphs. BUT, I'm not saying any car is going to be faster. Wait until the real world. Edited February 8, 2008 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f16/chrysl...srt-8-a-118134/ Factory claims for 300SRT8: CHRYSLER 300C SRT-8Vehicle type: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 5-passenger, 4-door sedan Estimated base price: $41,000 Engine type: pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injection Displacement: 370 cu in, 6059cc Power (SAE net): 425 bhp @ 6200 rpm Torque (SAE net): 420 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm Transmission: 5-speed automatic with manumatic shifting Wheelbase: 120.0 in Length/width/height: 196.8/74.1/57.9 in Curb weight: 4200 lb C/D-estimated performance: Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec Zero to 100 mph: 12.8 sec Standing 1/4-mile: 13.4 sec @ 105 mph Top speed (governor limited): 155 mph Projected fuel economy (mfr's est): EPA city driving: 14 mpg EPA highway driving: 19 mpg They are a bit faster than that stock it seems. The Challenger hasn't lost any weight or HP from the 300.....I expect similar results. So, probably not faster than Shelby GT500 (or obviously a KR) but faster than the garden variety Mustang GT. But for $5600 (installed) I can add a Saleen Supercharger!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford-150 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.srtforums.com/forums/f16/chrysl...srt-8-a-118134/ Factory claims for 300SRT8: They are a bit faster than that stock it seems. The Challenger hasn't lost any weight or HP from the 300.....I expect similar results. So, probably not faster than Shelby GT500 (or obviously a KR) but faster than the garden variety Mustang GT. But for $5600 (installed) I can add a Saleen Supercharger!!!!! that would not even be fair.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 that would not even be fair.... but hey...the Challenger has IRS and thats all that matters..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/first...nger_SRT8.shtml And what a big Challenger we have here. The original car was the Mama Bear of boulevard bruisers — too large to be a pony car, too small to be a muscle car. The new car, however, is its father's son. To get a full appreciation of its footprint, you need to look at the dimensions of a Challenger key competitor: the Ford Mustang. The Dodge is nearly ten inches longer, rides on almost a nine-inch longer wheelbase, and is more than two inches wider. Then there's the weight. At 4140 pounds, the Challenger is big, fat, and happy. Sure, it weighs only 220 pounds more than a GT500, but let us not forget that the Shelby is a porker as well. You want real proof of the Challenger's bulk? The Dodge is an embarrassing 690 pounds heavier than a Mustang GT. You quickly understand why Dodge chose to do something they've only ever done for the Viper: namely, launch the SRT model as the only version for the first model year. ............all the early adopters will have to hang their heads in shame when they tell their buddies that they bought a 425-hp, rear-drive muscle car with an open differential. We feel so badly for them. ......... Ouch! Man, and people say the Mustang ought to lighten up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 http://www.motivemag.com/pub/feature/first...nger_SRT8.shtmlOuch! Man, and people say the Mustang ought to lighten up! I blame all the mandated safety equip ment...must be exceedingly hard to lower curb weights now other than resorting to very expensive exotic castings and materials....DAMN SHAME! Lotus please......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 And what a big Challenger we have here. The original car was the Mama Bear of boulevard bruisers — too large to be a pony car, too small to be a muscle car. The new car, however, is its father's son. This quote makes no sense. They specifically say the old Challenger was "too large to be a pony car" (ie. not comparable in size to a Mustang).... Now they complain when it (like its namesake) weighs more then a ponycar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napoleon Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I think the challenger is a sweet looking car, and although a bit on the heavy side they will sell every one of em well above sticker for some time. I hate the camaro, aside from the front end because well I dislike GM people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I blame all the mandated safety equip ment...must be exceedingly hard to lower curb weights now other than resorting to very expensive exotic castings and materials....DAMN SHAME! Lotus please......... Some safety equipment is mandated, some is expected by consumers. Lotus would never have mass appeal for that reason. The Challenger hasn't lost any weight over it's sedan counterparts....not good IMHO. (I think the GT500KR sould be using the aluminum GT block) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 This quote makes no sense. They specifically say the old Challenger was "too large to be a pony car" (ie. not comparable in size to a Mustang).... Now they complain when it (like its namesake) weighs more then a ponycar? It being the father's son, ie a chip off the old block? The old Challenger was larger (a shortened Charger essentially) and certainly wider than a Mustang, but didn't weight that much more than 'Stang (I *think*....not sure). The new one, like it's "Mamma Bear" was larger, but ALSO weighs more, like the Pappa Bear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Some safety equipment is mandated, some is expected by consumers. Lotus would never have mass appeal for that reason. The Challenger hasn't lost any weight over it's sedan counterparts....not good IMHO. (I think the GT500KR sould be using the aluminum GT block) personally i think the Mustang is the best all round package...these cars are all getting way too large...in fact even the mustang could be made smaller please....hel the back seats are really only token right now....in sincerity we may never see a sub 3200lb car AGAIn, unless it is tiny of course....( edited due to my illi...illa...illiter....BAD TYPING! ) Edited February 8, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswhoscomingtodinner Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 but hey...the Challenger has IRS and thats all that matters..... Not really. From reading this post, it sounds like the only driving people do in MusTANKs and Challengers will be in a straight line on a drag strip. :boring: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Not really. From reading this post, it sounds like the only driving people do in MusTANKs and Challengers will be in a straight line on a drag strip. :boring: re-read all the posts before you come to my place for snacks....IRS is not the be all and end all, simple as that...it comes with plus's AND minus's...just like a live rear axle...and a well sorted live is better than a botched IRS...and vice versa....personally if Ford does come out withan IRS system perhaps it should be optional??? who knows... Edited February 8, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 re-read all the posts before you come to my place for snacks....IRS is not the be all and end all, simple as that...it comes with plus's AND minus's...just like a live rear axle...and a well sorted live is better than a botched IRS...and vice versa....personally if Ford does come out withan IRS system perhaps it should be optional??? who knows... irs verse live axle...this will go on and on and on...i says lets get out of the 60's and 70's..simplier times for sure...but it is time for irs on the stang and no more rear leaf springs on the f150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 irs verse live axle...this will go on and on and on...i says lets get out of the 60's and 70's..simplier times for sure...but it is time for irs on the stang and no more rear leaf springs on the f150 I can kinda agree with you on the Stang...yes the IRS is higher tech but weight and certain performance parameters are issues...so we have IRS then here comes the bitchin about weight! Compromises are the norm in vehicles...no car will EVER be perfect to anyone. As for the F-150...is there an alternative that can actually perform the same when it comes to handling loads and towing? Not sure there actually is..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I can kinda agree with you on the Stang...yes the IRS is higher tech but weight and certain performance parameters are issues...so we have IRS then here comes the bitchin about weight! Compromises are the norm in vehicles...no car will EVER be perfect to anyone. As for the F-150...is there an alternative that can actually perform the same when it comes to handling loads and towing? Not sure there actually is..... dean you are right about weight and costs as well as a shitty set up potential...we are talking ford..seriously as others have stated its a give and take..i would still prefer better handling then straight line performer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I could have done w/out IRS (especially for weight constraints), but it would have cost a bunch to re-engineer a live axle rear end into that platform (do they even have live axle rear ends at Chrysler in anything other then a truck for the past twenty years?) They did what they could with an existing platform in a very good amount of time. I think its one helluva car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 dean you are right about weight and costs as well as a shitty set up potential...we are talking ford..seriously as others have stated its a give and take..i would still prefer better handling then straight line performer... land of compromises, if one is happy theres another that isn't....I just don't want the Stang to become too gimicky...what am i saying...ambient lighting?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooter Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 land of compromises, if one is happy theres another that isn't....I just don't want the Stang to become too gimicky...what am i saying...ambient lighting?????? no shit...ambiant lighting is such a joke....pussified the mustang in my opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 no shit...ambiant lighting is such a joke....pussified the mustang in my opinion IMO definitely out of place in the Mustang...but we must have our condoments with our burgers....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 (edited) i have seen bone stock 2005+ GTs run 13.0-13.3 at 104-106mph. That was in wisconsin at 70degree clear day. All of the 05+ GTs I've seen run have trapped 100 - 104. The cars need a tune to trap anything over 104, the vast majority trap 101-103 mph pre tune. Mach 1s would do 105 - 107 stock, but not the 3Vs. The Bullitt or Shelby GT might have a shot at 105-106, but they have a more aggressive factory tune among other mods. The Bullitt even has 3.73s. Edited February 9, 2008 by White99GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 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 think it's a good looking vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 no shit...ambiant lighting is such a joke....pussified the mustang in my opinion So don't order it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 So don't order it. Who would? Anyone can put 5 LEDs randomly placed around the interior for $3.37. And at that price, the LEDs will cost more than the interior. 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.