As a younger fan of automobiles, I can remember SVT being the first real specialty division that spawned jaw dropping cars. Then came along MB with their in house AMG tuners, who took MB's and turned them into rocketships. When DC was created, their SRT program started turning out jaw dropping cars and SUV's. The basically have stuffed the biggest engine possible with nice appearance packeges as well.

Here's my point. Look at the first Sheby GT500 made. 19" wheels, painted stripes, a mean looking hood. Now the latest car wears tape stripes, smaller 18's (which come on GT's) and a hood that looks like it has HVAC ceiling vents on it.

Look at the SRT-8 Charger and 300. 20" wheels (that actually fit the wheel well dimensions and don't look goofy) aggressive body lines, hood scoops, and a mean 6.1L V8. Also look at the new Challenger concept (granted it's ONLY a concept) but that thing might get 500+hp 6.4L hemi and, to me, has the whole package. They've also rodded out a Grand Cherokee and Neon that are just as mean.

My question is, if you had $45,000 which would you buy?

Cobra: Supercharged 475hp, 6 speed, SRA
Challenger: All motor 500hp, 6 Speed, IRS

I see Ford taking steps backward, while SRT is pouring it on. Does anyone else see this trend, or am I

 

Whole Chrysler group really changed their image recently. I remember times when Dodge was just cheap, unreliable car, selling for a lot under MSRP. Look at them now. Other than Stratus, which will be gone after 2006, the cheapest Dodge car is $22,500. And they're selling at or around MSRP.

 

I think SRT has passed SVT. Look at it this way, SRT has a huge selection of vehicles to choose from, and will mostly likely keep on growing. SVT offers 3 vehicles. one of which is over 100 grand. Now from wut I can see, SRT is just dropping big engines, big rims, and hot bodyparts onto ther vehicles. I don't know to much about SRT, do they do much for mod's on brakes, suppension, etc. Because SVT does do an overhaul of a vehicle when they do. I'm assuming SRT does the same thing. I just havn't heard anything about it.

Also lets no forget SS. They are the same thing as SVT and SRT. of GM brands, I like Pontiac and SS. SS has some pretty nice vehicles. my buddy's mom drive's a black impala SS. its a very hot car.

 

No question SRT is moving out ahead. That Challenger looks to be more of a "quality piece" than the Shelby and is certain to offer proper wheel size and tire offset (just look at the Magnum and Charger and 300 SRT versions to see what I mean). It will also sport IRS so there's no question which car will be superior in spirited real world driving.

Part of it is the difference in the corporate philosophies of the two companies, but it's also the difference between a company that's in the black (DCX) and a company that's still in the red and operating under threat of future bankruptcy (Ford).

 

What?! From what I've read/seen the Challenger is bigger and heavier than the GT500? How can you discount the GT500 and applaud the Challenger when neither of them are on the market?

As for who is better . .well currently their are no SVT's on the market so it would seem that until there are some SVT's for sale SRT would be ahead.

And AMG was an independent entity before the Mercedes co-op agreement and infused them into their product line. They used to be like a Steeda or Saleen . . .i.e., the original AMG Hammer. AMG History

 

Just remember when all is said and done the SRT is a DODGE'M

 

Srt-8 do alot to suspension, they come with brembo brakes and other goodies.

 

Just remember when all is said and done the SVT is a FORD'M

And your point is...?

 

Just based upon what we know so far...and the recent histories of the two companies.

The Mustang uses a steel girder for a rear suspension - the Challenger will definitely be IRS (if it really is based upon the underpinnings of the Mercedes E-Class/Chrysler 300/Dodge Magnum/Dodge Charger, etc.).

As the person above stated, it will probably also offer 20" wheels (with proper offset), Brembo brakes, a higher level of specific creature comforts, etc.

From what I can see now - and admittedly nothing is definite yet - the Challenger will be the superior vehicle.

Unfortunately, the one place where Ford consistently falls down is listening to their customers. They don't really listen to what consumers want, but rather just give them what they think is "good enough" - and this experience all too frequently extends down to the dealership level too, where far too many people on this board report endless problems with dealership attitudes and service.

Ford needs to get its house in order. From what I've seen of the GT-500 so far, I'm not overly impressed with the content (nor are a great many people, judging from comments on this board), yet HTT and Carroll Shelby's attitudes seem to be: "You'll bloody well take what we give you and like it!"

I'll reserve any further observations until we see the final car next weekend...but I'm not overly confident it's gonna be much to get excited about based upon what we know up to this point.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly eat my words and take the flames.

 

Yes, the Challenger appears to be much larger and weighs more. Per Car & Driver:

Car - Weight - Wheelbase - Length/Width/Height

Shelby - 3850 - 107.1 - 188.0/73.9/55.7
Challenger - 4100 - 115.9 - 197.8/78.6/57.0

As the numbers show, the Challenger is nearly 10" longer, and 5 inches wider.

I guess i'm just dissapointed in seeing the this car:



become a weak sister of itself. Meanwhile, the boys are SRT are turning out stuff like this:

 

SRT is light years ahead at the moment. They basically took Ford's SVT concept and did it right.

Ford, on the otherhand, well, I'm not sure what they've been doing with SVT lately. While DCX is pumping out one hot SRT after another almost effortlessly, Ford dribbles out one every few years after seemingly huge exertions.

The innovative "can-do" SVT of Coletti's day that managed to make a silk purse out of even the old Fox-chassis sow's ear in the SN95 Cobra, at a great and affordable value to boot. Now, SVTs Cobra effort has devolved to the overpriced, undercontented GT500 -- even with a brand new chassis light years ahead of the deluvian Fox -- all to the various whinings and condescending refrains of why they can't do this, add that, know better than you what you need or whatever and at a significantly higher relative price point (premium) to top it off.

They seem to be a team that just doesn't quite have its game on while SRT is really on a roll. SRT products are not only hugely exciting, but very well executed, comprehensively engineered, sophisticated and well rounded products. Rather than making excuses for what they can't do, they continue to delight and amaze with what they do, a car in which you can delight in the multitude of details and fine overall execution.

And while SVT takes some agonizing long time to bring, say, dribble out the GT500, punctuated by ever less content and engineering being included, SRT is spitting out an ever more impressive fleet of cars in Tommy Gun fashion.

I'm sorry, and it's disheartening to say so, while the GT500 looks like it will be a very good car, SVT's sputtering exertions clearly just aren't measuring up to SRTs comprehensive output. Ford and SVT really do need to get much more serious if they intend to compete across the board.

Where's the SVT Fusion, Focus, Milan, 500, Lightning or Explorer -- now -- like SRTs fully fleshed range? We get far more promises and excuses than results on the road from SVT.

 

atlest the GT500 doesn't look like I poo on a piece of paper and named it Charger.

No wounder DCX and GM create crap vehicles; they get their designs from their hiney, literally.

 

:crazy:

 

Yes, just like the clearly superior (to the Mustang) GTO!

oh, wait...

 

The answer to your protestations is simple: DCX is in the black while Ford is scrambling to find the $$ to fully flesh out its programs.

That, and I now fear the corporate culture at Ford - all the way down to the dealer level - don't give a flying frack about what customers really want.

I honestly believe the GT500 is going to be a huge, de-contented disappointment, execution-wise. And I think the Challenger will steal a lot of its thunder at the NAIAS this year.

 

I guess that's why NO OTHER automaker in the world uses SRA in their performance automobiles, huh? Because they're all so dumb and Ford is so smart.

Re the GTO: that car is quicker off the line with its IRS than the Mustang GT with its SRA; in fact, it's superior in most performance respects. Unfortunately, it's also butt ugly!

 

My interpretation of the lack of SVT offerings right now is quite different. Given the execution of the new Mustang, the GT, and the steady improvement in the mainstream offerings of FLM, I'll take a positive outlook on it. I think they're holding off until they can do it right, until they have the money to do so. As for an SVT Fusion, look at the success, or lack thereof, of the SVT Contour and Focus (Both cars I dig, btw). I think being anything but cautious about such an undertaking in the Fusion is common sense, period.


EDIT: To reply to BC... (btw, nice way to avoid the GTO issue)

I'd like to point out that I'm not an IRS hater, and I sure don't remember implying the use of an SRA being some Ford-borne stroke of genius. Merely pointing the folly of your proclamation of superiority before the Challenger is more than even a mere concept!

I've stated before I care little for which group of three letters Ford wishes to stick under the rear of the Mustang, the results of that effort are all I care about. And frankly, anything else is fanboyism, silliness. I will take the SRA in the GT500 over the half-a... hearted IRS in the last Cobra any day of the week. A well-done suspension is a well-done suspension, what it's called really shouldn't matter.

For the record though, I have absolutely zero problem with the SRA/IRS approach Ford as taken with the Mustang. It's there when they need it, in the mean time, we get a great compromise that allows a Mustang GT to base for around $25-$26k, I think I'll live.

 

That's because there is no issue.

<!--QuoteBegin-Q`res@January 3, 2006, 9:50 PM
I've stated before I care little for which group of three letters Ford wishes to stick under the rear of the Mustang, the results of that effort are all I care about. And frankly, anything else is fanboyism, silliness. I will take the SRA in the GT500 over the half-a... hearted IRS in the last Cobra any day of the week. A well-done suspension is a well-done suspension, what it's called really shouldn't matter.

Quoted post

[/quote]
Comparing a poorly executed IRS (as in "I will take the SRA in the GT500 over the half-a... hearted IRS in the last Cobra any day of the week") aptly demonstrates the obvious flaw in your argument, that is to say, being the only circumstance under which an SRA might prove superior.

It's not an "either/or" equation for the rest of the world's automakers, seemingly, but since the example you cite is within the ranks of Ford, I would maintain that's not the best example to use, since Ford is a company that is currently making its decisions solely on the basis of what it can afford, not what is actually best.

Rest assured that the designers of the Challenger concept wouldn't even consider using SRA in that car. And once again, your proclamation of "fanboyism" isn't an answer to my question: Why does no other automaker in the world use SRA anymore in any of its performance or GT cars? Or as Holmes might say: "First eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." And the truth here is that a properly executed IRS is superior in real world driving conditions. Period. End of discussion.

Now if Ford can't do a properly executed IRS (for whatever reasons) in the Mustang, that's a different discussion entirely. But if that's really the case, then why is there an IRS in the Sport-Trac Adrenalin?

 

Can we please not turn this into another IRS thread.

I agree that SRT is miles ahead of SVT at this point. I just wish Ford would throw around the 5.4 like DCX is throwing around the HEMI.

 

I agree, since there IS NO debate here.