funny thing is...a N/A v6 with a few bolt ons is a pretty good match up against one of em

 

We're even faster waaay up there, I like it when John/Ashley Force beats Ron Capps, lol. It's so lame to call a 4 door car a muscle car. Even the interior on those suck, I think they're just plain.

 

And the Shelby 500's are good for high 11's stock, right. That's the proper comparison to an SRT8.

Otherwise a decent looking car. I'd concider one for the Family Car if we ever downsize from the Jeep Commander.

Thing with the RT's is that you can't always tell what's been done to them, as you can't always tell what has been done to a Mustang.

I'd rather bash ricers...

 

i think we can all agree on that!

 

I had one rev me at a light last summer....yellow with the special graphics...moving through 3rd i had about 1/2 car length and he was into 4th....game, set match, inverted-roe...toolio backed off at 60.......fairly certain, it'd have been 2+ car lengths in his not so distant future....

 

We own both a 2005 Mustang GT and a 2006 Charger RT. For those of you who owned old musclecars like me (72 big block Torino and a 71 small block Montego) the big Dodge compares well. A musclecar was never a Mustang...they were big intermediates or full size cars with a big engines, lots of torque and room for 4 adults. Yes the Mustang is faster and has a more secure stable ride, the Charger leans more in the turns and has a subtle float to it. A long trip with my almost adult kids would be more comfy in the Charger. I would rather drive my stang on a twisty two lane. The Charger weighs 600-700 lbs more and it does affect the acceleration and handling, but that motor definately has way more torque than the 4.6 and it has a better shifting automatic.

 

The Charger is a nice family car. It has aggressive styling. It has a big motor but it is not a muscle car. I disagree about the Mustang being a muscle car also. It was a pony car in concept but also became a premier muscle car by the time they started putting the K-code engines.
The first and greatest muscle car was the GTO. This was based on the Tempest body with a 389 CI motor. The muscle cars were always base models stuffed with a V-8 and a few other performance goodies. Maybe some graphics added on the exterior, especially on Chrysler cars.
The thing about the muscle cars in the sixties was they were all two door cars. While all car makers were trying to be part of the muscle car trend back then, none of them were using 4-door sedans as a base for their muscle cars. Not even Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth.
Chrysler missed the mark with the Charger because of this. It is an attractive and powerful sedan. If they had made it a two-door then it really would qualify as a muscle car by classic standards. This may be why Chrysler is jumping on the retro-muscle car trend currently with the Challenger, a two door muscle car. Too bad it will be so expensive to own a Challenger. I understand they will be selling SRT Challengers for 60-70K .

 

Apparently, there will be 5,500 built for March, all automatic SRT-8's selling at 38k+. Of course, dealers will have their way, so it may very well be possible to reach the 60k mark, but only time will tell. For the 2009 year, the 3.5, 5.7 and 6.1 will be available, ALSO with a 6 speed. Then of course, I wouldn't be suprised if Chrysler offered the 505 hp version in the future.

 

the dealers are gonna CLEAN UP with those first 5,500 srt-8's. ****es me off that they are all auto. seriously, who the hell wants that???

 

My biggest complaint about the super bee is that it was never based on the charger, it was a coronet. They should have called the SUper Bee the Daytona.