New SRT8 Challenger 392
06-21-2011, 08:50 PM
#141
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: virginia beach va
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Gm made the wrong decision going with a superchared engine with the zl1..they should of just put the ls7 in it and called it the day..All they are doing is adding more weight to an already heavy car.
That would have probably kept me in a GM.
06-21-2011, 09:45 PM
#145
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=ohioborn80;15065076] Fake scoop, fake louvers, side skirts to hide the really odd black piece along the bottom. Really not a good look.
Glass roof is cool but a moonroof is far, far better. True on the 'vert.
It's a larger, more expensive car. If the price was the same, I would expect the performance crowd to tip the scales in favor of the SS & 5.0 anyway. And there are a LOT of Camaros and Mustangs in rental fleets. A LOT.
Mid 12s with a 1.9x 60ft, 12.3s with a 1.8x 60ft which, with it's weight and torque, is obtainable (and already done).
Actually my GF made a similar observation. Some many pieces are weirdly oversized, she thought it was silly. Shifter (auto), speaker, steering wheel center, big doors, high hood line, etc.
It's quite nice though, excellent quality, ergonomics and feel. The SS is really retro and it's rather horrible inside.
Most SRT-8s are dyno'd in 3rd, 4th gear is too fast (173mph) for most dynos. T
High 11s pretty obtainable I'm sure.
I already agreed the SRT8 is the best looking between the SS/SRT/5.0. But you also have other option to get with the 5.0 that you didn't post. Hood scope/window louvers/side skirts. All installed from ford. Glass roof. Convertible. Which Chally does not have at all.
Glass roof is cool but a moonroof is far, far better. True on the 'vert.
Also A lot people like to check out the 5.0 right now cause it is new. But people want to check out the SRT8 cause they are not out there cause no one si buying them like they are the SS/5.0. They have sold half as many Challengers then they have 5.0 and even less then then they have SS.
We know there is fast ones. But look what they have had to do to get that fast.
I think the 392 is fast but not as fast as you making it out to be. low 12s bone stock off the show room(putting DR's is not stock). Mid 12's is believable. I will not mention the magazine articles that have it list as 13 flat.
I think the 392 is fast but not as fast as you making it out to be. low 12s bone stock off the show room(putting DR's is not stock). Mid 12's is believable. I will not mention the magazine articles that have it list as 13 flat.
High 11s pretty obtainable I'm sure.
06-21-2011, 09:53 PM
#146
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was thinking GM should have 3 versions of the camaro.
Z28- in years past it was the base v8 but it could now be a answer to the boss 302. Maybe tuned ls3 with weight reduction to the car.
SS- a new ls variation with 396(enormous sales booster) cubic inches and about 450hp. Or the ls7 for 427 cubes.
Zl1 - ls9 or nothing.
The Challenger needs that 392 in the r/t and the srt needs a supercharger or a new hemi with 426 cubes.
Z28- in years past it was the base v8 but it could now be a answer to the boss 302. Maybe tuned ls3 with weight reduction to the car.
SS- a new ls variation with 396(enormous sales booster) cubic inches and about 450hp. Or the ls7 for 427 cubes.
Zl1 - ls9 or nothing.
The Challenger needs that 392 in the r/t and the srt needs a supercharger or a new hemi with 426 cubes.
06-21-2011, 10:06 PM
#147
Teching In
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like it or not Retro sells and 80% of people age 40+ that buy these cars do so because they had the originals. Much of the younger age group still have f-bodies, gtos, cobras, vettes, and other newer style cars either because they are cheaper or they don't care for Retro look.
06-21-2011, 10:48 PM
#150
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree i dont think that they are bad at all but i think they should have tried to make the R/T more competive (performance wise), considering its more in the price range of the Mustang/Camaro.
06-21-2011, 11:00 PM
#151
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indy
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06-21-2011, 11:24 PM
#152
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
around here im gonna guess faster (every area/driver is different), v6 11's around here from what i hear run slow
06-22-2011, 12:16 AM
#153
06-22-2011, 02:11 AM
#154
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See above. A bolt-on Challenger is gonna make 500rwhp maybe, but if it runs the same times as a 450rwhp Mustang, I'm not impressed. Lighter car please.
06-22-2011, 02:16 AM
#155
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Albany NY
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better looking, heavier car, more power FTW.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.
06-22-2011, 02:56 AM
#156
Teching In
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Socal
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Better looking, heavier car, more power FTW.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.
06-22-2011, 07:56 AM
#157
Launching!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Greenhaven/ South Sacramento 'Burbs
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think people are underestimating them because Dodge is traditionally an under-performer and over-priced. No question the Challenger is the best looking muscle car out there.
Am I the only person that thinks the 392 is making **** numbers? Yes, it is making great numbers compared to the SS/5.0. But it is however a 6.4L motor making 470 HP. The Boss is making 444 HP with a 5.0L. I'm sure if Chevy made a performance V8 model like the Boss and SRT that they could pull off equal numbers to the SRT.
For $43,000 on the SRT-8 you had better be buying the car based on it's looks because in the performance department it's lacking compared to the competition, $ to $.
Am I the only person that thinks the 392 is making **** numbers? Yes, it is making great numbers compared to the SS/5.0. But it is however a 6.4L motor making 470 HP. The Boss is making 444 HP with a 5.0L. I'm sure if Chevy made a performance V8 model like the Boss and SRT that they could pull off equal numbers to the SRT.
For $43,000 on the SRT-8 you had better be buying the car based on it's looks because in the performance department it's lacking compared to the competition, $ to $.
50whp isn't nothing really. When weight is 500lbs or more depending on model of 5.0. That 50whp is right out the window.
From times seen on Challengertalk/challengerforums they are running very close times as each other. Some 12.3-12.9's just like the 5.0s. Comparing best each the 5.0 is ahead by .15/3mph. That was with the SRT8 on DR's and the 5.0 on street tires. 12.1 with just tires on a 5.0. The weight is making a bigger factor then the 50whp. Also a few 5.0's have hit 380whp+ stock.
Both are getting faster stock with more people learning to drive them. Which happens with all cars.
From times seen on Challengertalk/challengerforums they are running very close times as each other. Some 12.3-12.9's just like the 5.0s. Comparing best each the 5.0 is ahead by .15/3mph. That was with the SRT8 on DR's and the 5.0 on street tires. 12.1 with just tires on a 5.0. The weight is making a bigger factor then the 50whp. Also a few 5.0's have hit 380whp+ stock.
Both are getting faster stock with more people learning to drive them. Which happens with all cars.
06-22-2011, 12:13 PM
#159
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree with the 300 SRT8. I've always been partial to luxury sports cars over pure sports cars. I personally would rather have a car with 4 doors, looks great inside and out, and is quick. It might not be the fastest but for what it is its great. I plan on buying an 06 300c SRT8 in the near future because of this preference. The other benefit with the SRT cars is they seem to be built very well and the seats are excellent. You don't seem to hear of a lot of common breakages or problems with the drivetrain. I personally will probably never own a mustang because they are too common and i like a little nicer inside, which is the reason i got rid of the camaro's I had. I can think of at least 10 people i know well that have a mustang gt or cobra from 91-11. Or the two 2011 GT500's that are a block from where i work. It is a personal preference. The new 5.0's are fast but that's not always the only reason to get a car. I always favored GM but with my Dodge Ram and my wife's Chrysler T&C and the 300 we use to have has swayed me.
06-22-2011, 12:30 PM
#160
Better looking, heavier car, more power FTW.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.
Dont get me wrong, i like the 5.0 but, the challenger looks amazing. May be a little more and i may have a slightly one sided opinion but hell, if i am going to spend 39,000$ on a loaded 5.0, ill spend the extra 3,000$ to get a loaded 392 challenger. I wouldnt wipe my *** with the SS. The 5.0 and 392 challenger are where its at. The new SRT charger i think is gorgeous, the jeep....no.