View Full Version : Leaked Dealer Brochure Confirms Big Upgrades for 2011 Dodge Challenger


TriShield
09-18-2010, 10:39 PM
Chiefly, the new Pentastar V6 and formerly crate-only 392 HEMI.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/09/02challenger2011brochure.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/09/01challenger2011brochure.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/09/03challenger2011brochure.jpg

The SRT moves to classic muscle car cubic inch badging instead of litres. Retuned suspensions. All models will use new corporate steering wheel and geart inside. Slightly revised styling outside as well.

Things are definitely changing for the better over at Chrysler.

djsanchez2
09-18-2010, 11:19 PM
Damn that's nearly 400ci; wonder what they will dyno stock? Wonder what the 392 version will weigh?

That thing is gonna move out if someone is able to drop some weight and mod the engine.

LS1LT1
09-19-2010, 12:34 AM
Wow, we'd heard the 6.4L rumors but it's really happening. :cool:
No 8 speed automatic just yet (as was also rumored) but that might still be coming as well.
Nice.

jmurray87
09-19-2010, 01:20 AM
Nice! Good to see the Challenger gets the power it deserves!

How about price increase?

Latch
09-19-2010, 01:59 AM
This is AWESOME! I LOVE the looks of the Challenger and now it's got the power to back it up! This is great stuff. :cheers:

Rawr256
09-19-2010, 03:05 AM
Cousin and I were talking the other day how it seems back in the muscle car war days it was all cu in. bragging and now it has turned into litres. Really curious to see if others kind of follow their lead with it.

BrntWS6
09-19-2010, 09:54 AM
I read the price was going to stay pretty much the same as the 2010 or even decrease ~$500. I like the car but always thought it should have a little wider stance.

Lethal Z
09-19-2010, 12:04 PM
Maybe its me but I still don't quite get it out of the challenger line up. The RT model (even with the bump in hp) still is no match for the SS camaro or mustang GT. In order to compete with these two cars you have to opt for the SRT, which puts you out of a lot more money. The good news is in this arena the new SRT should compete very well. The bad news is I don't think it will compete at all at the level it should be competing at based on its price. And that is in an arena with the new Z28 and the new Cobra.

WSsick
09-19-2010, 02:40 PM
475hp 392ci V8 really is a muscle car. I LOVE the ci bading making a comback, hopefully the other 2 follow. :) I hope the weight is trimmed as well on the SRT, because that would make it even nastier.

And a $500 gift card for Mopar parts is friggin sweet. That's at least an exhaust. Really cool incentive/reward.

justin455
09-19-2010, 03:40 PM
475hp 392ci V8 really is a muscle car. I LOVE the ci bading making a comback, hopefully the other 2 follow. :) I hope the weight is trimmed as well on the SRT, because that would make it even nastier.

And a $500 gift card for Mopar parts is friggin sweet. That's at least an exhaust. Really cool incentive/reward.

Hmm...I really have no previous knowledge, but I would think $500 through the manufactuer would get you exhaust tips at best.

smg267
09-19-2010, 06:14 PM
We were running a $2000 mopar bucks good towards any accessories with the purchase of a new Challenger at my job for awhile.
Parts department loved it!!

Only wish that Chevy would do something like that!!!

DiscerningZ32
09-19-2010, 09:03 PM
Cool. I still wouldn't consider a Challenger.

The RT doesn't really compete with the Camaro SS or Mustang GT.
The fact that they actually seemed to be targeting the GT500 with the SRT8 is laughable.

Though, it does speak volumes for how kick ass the new Jeep SRT8 will be.
I'm most definitely looking forward to that as it's rumored to make more than the Challenger SRT8.

Gaunt
09-20-2010, 12:39 AM
Haha wow.... check out the tire width on the SRT8.

Fantastic.

Tainted
09-20-2010, 09:03 AM
still needs some more balls and less weight

ibanez7
09-20-2010, 01:56 PM
wow a 3.6 VVT 6 banger, that gets less mpg than a 98-02 ls1.

LOL

never been and still not impressed with lead sleds by mopar. LOL at tire size!!

ramairroughneck
09-20-2010, 02:10 PM
^Actually it probably gets better mileage than a 98-02 as the millage rating system changed and lowered the numbers for the newer cars

ibanez7
09-20-2010, 02:15 PM
^Actually it probably gets better mileage than a 98-02 as the millage rating system changed and lowered the numbers for the newer cars

this i didnt hear about..

how can you change MPG... its simple accurate math.. unless you fake the accuracy...


full tank divided by miles driven on tank equals mpg

granted driving styles, city or highway effect this and so do other varibles but its still simple math.

01 ss vert
09-20-2010, 02:44 PM
to my knowledge, EPA ratings have held a tight testing standard for some time now. That's why some companies that are near a gas guzzling tax for a particular will try to up their mileage just a little.

Such as: if testing showed 17.3 mpg, the window sticker would say 17, but if they changed a few things without affecting emissions and got it to 17.7mpg, the window sticker would show 18. Now with Obama coming out in 2008 stating the tighter standards by 2020, we will see more of this.

I still laugh at the political push for better fuel economy standards while at the same time the gov't mandates use of ethanol in gas.....a 33% less energy per content fuel at that. Go figure.

ramairroughneck
09-20-2010, 08:48 PM
Starting in 2008 the EPA changed their method of testing which resulted in a average millage drop among the cars they tested. Some cars lost 4 mi/gal from the previous year. The cars didnt actually lose any millage but rather their millage rating changed as a result of the new testing procedure. The new ratings were said to be more accurate in terms of real world driving. Granted, you can allways divide the miles you drive by the gallons used. For some reason I dont think the epa does this on every vehicle they test but who knows they just might.http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/resource-center/fuel-economy/epa-mileage-figures/overview/0709_mpg_ov.htm

Cole Train
09-21-2010, 02:17 AM
Haha wow.... check out the tire width on the SRT8.

Fantastic.

i thought that was funny. 245's all the way around. My '98 C5 has that width in the FRONT. lol My truck has wider tires :D

LS1vazquez
09-28-2010, 01:47 PM
Maybe its me but I still don't quite get it out of the challenger line up. The RT model (even with the bump in hp) still is no match for the SS camaro or mustang GT. In order to compete with these two cars you have to opt for the SRT, which puts you out of a lot more money. The good news is in this arena the new SRT should compete very well. The bad news is I don't think it will compete at all at the level it should be competing at based on its price. And that is in an arena with the new Z28 and the new Cobra.

You look like a champion driving the Challenger. That's all that matters.

TriShield
09-28-2010, 08:18 PM
You look like a champion driving the Challenger. That's all that matters.

Yep, it looks like win and can toss your head back with a stab of the throttle. The engine at WOT sounds badass too.

01ssreda4
09-29-2010, 01:00 AM
Couple of things.....

I like the hp wars, even though I'm not in the market for a new car.
The 392 Challenger looks like it will be pretty quick stock
With only 1100 the first year, you wont see them often
Price will be too high IMO.

:nod:

Darksol
09-29-2010, 01:05 AM
You look like a champion driving the Challenger. That's all that matters.

Looking like a champion and being a champion are two different things. Will the suspension tweaks lend itself to being a better handling car? Did it get a diet not mentioned? Seems like a GT500 will walk it all day and new Z-28 will too. The Challenger is the heaviest, have the smallest tire and the least power still. Doesn't sound like a champion formula to me.

Darksol
09-29-2010, 01:06 AM
I will commend them for not using F.I. to make power though.

Irunelevens
09-29-2010, 01:25 AM
i thought that was funny. 245's all the way around. My '98 C5 has that width in the FRONT. lol My truck has wider tires :D
Yeah, even my Frontier had 265s all around.
I will commend them for not using F.I. to make power though.

IMO, power is power.

hisjakeness
09-30-2010, 05:31 PM
still needs some more balls and less weight

it's still a step in the right direction though!

2002_Z28_Six_Speed
09-30-2010, 06:30 PM
this i didnt hear about..

how can you change MPG... its simple accurate math.. unless you fake the accuracy...


full tank divided by miles driven on tank equals mpg

granted driving styles, city or highway effect this and so do other varibles but its still simple math.

Driving style is estimated to influence MPG by about 20 to 25%.
Higher average speeds these days also have caused the rating system to be pushed down numerically.



http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/118986/article.html




Testing at higher speeds (up to 80 mph). Previously, speeds were limited to 55 mph to match the speed limit of the 1970s.
More aggressive acceleration and deceleration (up to 8 mph per second rather than just 3.3 mph per second). The previous tests did not match today's hectic traffic patterns.
Hot-weather testing and measuring vehicle fuel economy while using the vehicle's air conditioner.
Testing in cold-weather temperatures while the vehicle's heater and defroster are operating
.