Anthony Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) Hmmmm..the Autoblog article at the beginning of this thread states a 13.9 1/4 mile time. At the live reveal, Jim Press states 13.3. (which is 1/10th quicker then the manufacturer claims on other SRT8 LX models...which are mostly faster in the real world) http://72.32.208.177/webcast/tvs/chrysler/...o/chicago_1.htm (about 5 and a half minutes in) Like I said earlier, don't believe everything you read. I have a feeling this thing is going to be quicker then most think. If it is like other SRT8 LX's...stock will dip into the 12's. Edited February 10, 2008 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser Soze Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The Challenger is a GREAT looking car, and a much better execution overall than the new Camaro IMO. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Mustang to sell. People who want a Challenger will buy one. I remember plenty of years when the Mustang was slower than the F-bodies. Ford still sold plenty of Mustangs. People buy what they want and make excuses for any real or percieved shortcomings in their vehicle of choice. Look at Harley Davidson owners for proof of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
96 Pony Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 The Challenger is a GREAT looking car, and a much better execution overall than the new Camaro IMO. It doesn't need to be as fast as the Mustang to sell. People who want a Challenger will buy one. I remember plenty of years when the Mustang was slower than the F-bodies. Ford still sold plenty of Mustangs. You beat me to it. For years the F bodies were faster than the Mustangs but who continually sold the most and who ended up getting cut? :shades: The real test will be when Challenger comes out in a V6 and in 'vert form. Then, personally I'd guess that it will outsell the new Camaro but not the Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 AutoWeek has the best BS on the car, straight from Dodge's mouth: "We realize that customers for this vehicle want a little bit of nostalgic body roll but not so much as on the 300C," says Adam Forte, SRT vehicle synthesis manager. "I want it to take an initial roll set quickly, without much jounce, and want it to feel very stable." NOSTALGIC BODY ROLL?! (Source: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../FREE/98813463) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 AutoWeek has the best BS on the car, straight from Dodge's mouth: NOSTALGIC BODY ROLL?! (Source: http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../FREE/98813463) I thought that was interesting as well. Though if it has less then the 300C as stated (which has pretty much none)...I'm not sure what they are getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) It's just hilarious that Dodge claims the customers wanted it. AutoWeek had interesting comments about the handling, too--sudden transitions from understeer to oversteer. I get that in a short-wheelbase Fox body Mustang with Quadrashocks, but in a long-wheelbase, heavy car with IRS? Edited February 10, 2008 by Moby Vic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 (edited) It's just hilarious that Dodge claims the customers wanted it. AutoWeek had interesting comments about the handling, too--sudden transitions from understeer to oversteer. I get that in a short-wheelbase Fox body Mustang with Quadrashocks, but in a long-wheelbase, heavy car with IRS? I believe you were talking about this reference where it looks they were provoking understeer & oversteer (ie...darting the wheel back and forth and slip-sliding to produce the aforementioned). Looks they were trying to find the characteristics and limits. The "sudden transitions" were not characteristics of the car's handling, but of their testing. Though, I agree it could have been worded much better. Slip-sliding and transitioning drastically from understeer to oversteer, it is difficult to nail down the Challenger's ultimate disposition, but previous experience with other LX-based cars indicates it is competent for track running and plenty amusing on the street. In most driving conditions, though, we expect a negligible performance difference between the Challenger and its stablemates, as the platform and drivetrain are the same. Edited February 10, 2008 by Intrepidatious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moby Vic Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Whatever. I'm still too busy laughing over the nostalgic body roll and the fact that the Challenger weighs more than my Crown Vic. 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.