MT Tests Three Challenger Flavors, plus Stang Numbers Comps
MT Tests Three Challenger Flavors, plus Stang Numbers Comps
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ing/index.html
Tested the Challenger SE, R/T, and SRT-8. In addition, they compared the test numbers with existing Stang test numbers. The results
Stang V6 vs. Challenger SE:
Pretty even overall. Acceleration was give and take up the scale while the Stang's 300lb. lighter weight seemed to give it a bit of an edge in handling and braking. Stang was cheaper though you get more car, literally and figuratively, with the Challenger, so kind of iffy as to which is the better value.
Bullitt vs R/T
Again, fairly close overall. Acceleration goes slightly to the Challenger, especially further up the scale while again, test track handling and braking favor the 500lb. lighter Bullitt. Bumpy real-world roads might be another story, but that would have to wait for an actual head-to-head to discern. Prices are within an option or two of each other.
GT500 vs SRT-8
This time, the Stang fairly clobbers the SRT-8, both in acceleration and handling/braking test track numbers. Again, I suspect the main reason to be the Challenger's size and weight for all the dynamic deficit, at least regarding smooth track test numbers, while there's just no arguing about the effectiveness of a midsized blown 4V DOHC motor vs a somewhat larger engine hampered by but two valves and pushrods - high tech triumphs over old tech here. The Challenger will save you 2-3 grand on the sticker, but even that much in aftermarket hop-up bits would make it hard to beat the GT500, at least on the straights.
On more personal, subjective notes:
Outside design: Challenger here, just an impeccably executed design that's even better than the very good Stang, especially in subtle details. GT500 comes closest, but the Chally still is a touch better. Now about that diet plan...
Inside design: Stang here, simply more interesting, exciting and evocative than the rehashed LX sedan interior of the Challenger. One exception might be the seats on the R/T and especially the SRT-8, the latter of which are some of the best in the business, period.
Overall: The Challenger seems to be slightly more the well-rounded gentleman's GT/musclecar than the smaller, harder edged if more narrowly focused Stang. A little of apples and oranges here, but perhaps that's a good thing rather than both cars going for precisely the same niche. Will be interesting to now see how the Camaro will slot in here.
Future:
Stang will be getting a well needed refresh in less than a year. Hard to tell how effective the exterior styling will be, but it will be fresher at least. As for the interior, I think it trades a touch of the current car's distinctiveness for better materials, execution and finish. Seems like the chassis will be effectively tweaked carryover as will be the drivetrain until the 5.0 shows in '11.
Challenger will carry over on the large LX platform for at least a couple of years and its size and weight will be its greatest hinderance, especially as gas gets ever more expensive and the overall economy wallows at best. But using the LX platform was the only practical option for bringing it to life in the first place. A 5/6ths downsize of this car would be far more compelling. Hopefully the size of the current car doesn't kill it before the next redo.
Tested the Challenger SE, R/T, and SRT-8. In addition, they compared the test numbers with existing Stang test numbers. The results
Stang V6 vs. Challenger SE:
Pretty even overall. Acceleration was give and take up the scale while the Stang's 300lb. lighter weight seemed to give it a bit of an edge in handling and braking. Stang was cheaper though you get more car, literally and figuratively, with the Challenger, so kind of iffy as to which is the better value.
Bullitt vs R/T
Again, fairly close overall. Acceleration goes slightly to the Challenger, especially further up the scale while again, test track handling and braking favor the 500lb. lighter Bullitt. Bumpy real-world roads might be another story, but that would have to wait for an actual head-to-head to discern. Prices are within an option or two of each other.
GT500 vs SRT-8
This time, the Stang fairly clobbers the SRT-8, both in acceleration and handling/braking test track numbers. Again, I suspect the main reason to be the Challenger's size and weight for all the dynamic deficit, at least regarding smooth track test numbers, while there's just no arguing about the effectiveness of a midsized blown 4V DOHC motor vs a somewhat larger engine hampered by but two valves and pushrods - high tech triumphs over old tech here. The Challenger will save you 2-3 grand on the sticker, but even that much in aftermarket hop-up bits would make it hard to beat the GT500, at least on the straights.
On more personal, subjective notes:
Outside design: Challenger here, just an impeccably executed design that's even better than the very good Stang, especially in subtle details. GT500 comes closest, but the Chally still is a touch better. Now about that diet plan...
Inside design: Stang here, simply more interesting, exciting and evocative than the rehashed LX sedan interior of the Challenger. One exception might be the seats on the R/T and especially the SRT-8, the latter of which are some of the best in the business, period.
Overall: The Challenger seems to be slightly more the well-rounded gentleman's GT/musclecar than the smaller, harder edged if more narrowly focused Stang. A little of apples and oranges here, but perhaps that's a good thing rather than both cars going for precisely the same niche. Will be interesting to now see how the Camaro will slot in here.
Future:
Stang will be getting a well needed refresh in less than a year. Hard to tell how effective the exterior styling will be, but it will be fresher at least. As for the interior, I think it trades a touch of the current car's distinctiveness for better materials, execution and finish. Seems like the chassis will be effectively tweaked carryover as will be the drivetrain until the 5.0 shows in '11.
Challenger will carry over on the large LX platform for at least a couple of years and its size and weight will be its greatest hinderance, especially as gas gets ever more expensive and the overall economy wallows at best. But using the LX platform was the only practical option for bringing it to life in the first place. A 5/6ths downsize of this car would be far more compelling. Hopefully the size of the current car doesn't kill it before the next redo.
Last edited by rhumb; Sep 30, 2008 at 05:08 PM.
Post *****
Joined: October 9, 2007
Posts: 32,808
Likes: 163
TMS Post # 1,000,000
Serbian Steamer
Serbian Steamer
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 12,636
Likes: 0
From: Wisconsin / Serbia
FR500 Member
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 3,084
Likes: 0
From: Honolulu
The next question is, how much will the Camaro's excess poundage affect performance against the Challenger? (If the 2010/11 Mustang can keep the weight down and the torque/hp #'s pan out, should be no contest!)
Well, 375hp and 410 lb/ft of torque are pretty considerable, even for a 4154 lb. car. It's power to weight ratio is slightly better than the Bullitt -- 10.1 vs 11 -- and it has even more torque per pound, plus an extra cog in the manual tranny to dice that power more finely, so that the R/T runs neck and neck with the Bullitt is pretty much backed up by the numbers and sounds entirely consistent and credible. The slushbox Challengers are a few ticks back, so perhaps that is what you were thinking of.
The wild card will be the Camaro, which looks like it will have a power rating closer to the SRT's but probably a weight in between the Stang and Challenger.
The wild card will be the Camaro, which looks like it will have a power rating closer to the SRT's but probably a weight in between the Stang and Challenger.
Last edited by rhumb; Oct 1, 2008 at 08:21 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
