C/D First Drive - 2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 392 HEMI
#21
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it's any of those, maybe more practical for hauling more people as it's a more room in the back seat but that's it. It looks WAY to fat to me. Out of all the current muscle cars it's the only one I haven't seen looking awesome, a lowered Mustang or Camaro look pretty amazing while any kind of Challenger looks like a pig. There is nothing really unique about it, it's based off a muscle car made how many years ago and was put into production because of how good the 2005+ Mustang had been doing. Unless you meant it was more rare, and that's only because people aren't buying it. All three are still really common.
I agree it's fast enough to get you into trouble, but it's only a little faster than a 2011 Mustang GT that goes for $15k less or Camaro that goes for $10k less. Chrysler really needs to get their *** in gear and make this pig lighter for what they're asking.
#22
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep theyre still using an iron block lol.
The 12.4 test is what Dodge ran and what Dodge claimed. Ive seen alot of times where a car company claims theyre car runs this and that but the testers cant match that lol. I have a video of it running the 12.4 at only 110mph if no one has seen it. Looks like the track it ran that on had a downhill slope lol and like GOCARTONE said it was negative DA i believe. So that 12.4 will be hard to go by and achieve in the real world for a bone stock vehicle off showroom floor.
Here a quote from the motortrend test pg.3..
"So how does the new SRT8 392 perform? First, it's fast, as in really fast. Dodge claims the 392 is capable of putting down a quarter-mile time of 12.4 seconds at 110.0 mph (the last 2010 we tested did 13.3 at 106.1). Well, our tester, which delivered a 13.0 flat at 111.3, easily outhustled the '10 but couldn't quite live up to Dodge's lofty prediction. (That said, the realized trap speed was higher.) Further, the 392's 0-to-60 time dropped 0.2 second to 4.6 compared to that of last year's 6.1 liter, putting it ahead of the Camaro SS (4.7) but a bit behind the Mustang GT (4.4)."
The 12.4 test is what Dodge ran and what Dodge claimed. Ive seen alot of times where a car company claims theyre car runs this and that but the testers cant match that lol. I have a video of it running the 12.4 at only 110mph if no one has seen it. Looks like the track it ran that on had a downhill slope lol and like GOCARTONE said it was negative DA i believe. So that 12.4 will be hard to go by and achieve in the real world for a bone stock vehicle off showroom floor.
Here a quote from the motortrend test pg.3..
"So how does the new SRT8 392 perform? First, it's fast, as in really fast. Dodge claims the 392 is capable of putting down a quarter-mile time of 12.4 seconds at 110.0 mph (the last 2010 we tested did 13.3 at 106.1). Well, our tester, which delivered a 13.0 flat at 111.3, easily outhustled the '10 but couldn't quite live up to Dodge's lofty prediction. (That said, the realized trap speed was higher.) Further, the 392's 0-to-60 time dropped 0.2 second to 4.6 compared to that of last year's 6.1 liter, putting it ahead of the Camaro SS (4.7) but a bit behind the Mustang GT (4.4)."
#24
I remember when the gen 1 Lightning came out. That was so heavy at 4000lbs. Now we have cars heavier than full size trucks a few years ago. Since Mopar now has an aluminum block, they really should use it.(especially given the Challenger price tag) I was amazed at how much it helped the GT500.
Last edited by onebaddakota; 12-29-2010 at 07:46 PM.
#25
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, and most people seem to overlook that. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. The price is WAY high though and getting out of reach for it's target market...well at least for me.
#28
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a Mopar guy and the appeal of a car like the Challenger isn't just in numbers printed about it in a magazine. Nobody buys and restores their favorite classics because of what Car and Driver wrote about it when it was new. It's about how the cars make them feel.
Mustangs are everywhere, there's nothing truly special about them no matter how cheap and fast they may be. The Challenger will always have a sense of occasion about it, something really special that doesn't come along every day.
Mustangs are everywhere, there's nothing truly special about them no matter how cheap and fast they may be. The Challenger will always have a sense of occasion about it, something really special that doesn't come along every day.
#29
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also keep in mind SRT8s are loaded with everything inside and out from leather, to Brembos, to the nicest wheel/tire combo, to the lowest gear set, nav and HIDs.
When you add the same equipment - HIDs, Brembos, navigation and leather on a Mustang GT with a manual it becomes a $39,245 car.
That does not include low gears like an SRT has, that's another $355 for 3.55s or 3.73s. Add 19" wheels/performance tires similar to the SRT, that's another grand. Ford even charges $500 for over the car stripes.
With the same equipment as the SRT8 you now have a Mustang GT that costs nearly the same amount of money. You can step up to a GT500 for $48,645 that costs more than the SRT8.
When you really compare the cars and what you get for your money the SRT8 is priced in the same range as Ford.
When you add the same equipment - HIDs, Brembos, navigation and leather on a Mustang GT with a manual it becomes a $39,245 car.
That does not include low gears like an SRT has, that's another $355 for 3.55s or 3.73s. Add 19" wheels/performance tires similar to the SRT, that's another grand. Ford even charges $500 for over the car stripes.
With the same equipment as the SRT8 you now have a Mustang GT that costs nearly the same amount of money. You can step up to a GT500 for $48,645 that costs more than the SRT8.
When you really compare the cars and what you get for your money the SRT8 is priced in the same range as Ford.
#30
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not a Mopar guy and the appeal of a car like the Challenger isn't just in numbers printed about it in a magazine. Nobody buys and restores their favorite classics because of what Car and Driver wrote about it when it was new. It's about how the cars make them feel.
Mustangs are everywhere, there's nothing truly special about them no matter how cheap and fast they may be. The Challenger will always have a sense of occasion about it, something really special that doesn't come along every day.
Mustangs are everywhere, there's nothing truly special about them no matter how cheap and fast they may be. The Challenger will always have a sense of occasion about it, something really special that doesn't come along every day.
#32
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 out of the last 25 threads you've made were about Chrysler. The only things you are talking about making it a better car are all opinion based, and looking at sales numbers most people don't agree with you. And $45k is still a lot closer to $48k than it is $39k, not sure where you pulled the $39k from either.
#33
TECH Apprentice
13 out of the last 25 threads you've made were about Chrysler. The only things you are talking about making it a better car are all opinion based, and looking at sales numbers most people don't agree with you. And $45k is still a lot closer to $48k than it is $39k, not sure where you pulled the $39k from either.
#35
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#36
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13 out of the last 25 threads you've made were about Chrysler. The only things you are talking about making it a better car are all opinion based, and looking at sales numbers most people don't agree with you. And $45k is still a lot closer to $48k than it is $39k, not sure where you pulled the $39k from either.
#37