Many goods points Axle, but I must correct you on a couple things. Although the 4.0L V6 does not produce much hp, it has a more than respectable 0-60 time of about 6.9 secs, which is a tick or two slower than the original version of the 4.6L 2 valve SOHC Modular engine. The Avenger R/T according to some sources might be slightly faster than the Mustang V6; however, the Avenger R/T is not very competitive in its class as much as I hate to say that. The reason why people are upset about the 3.5L only producing 235hp in there is the 3.5L's last update was in 1999 when it was introduced into the 300M/LHS, when it produced 253hp. The 3.5L lacks many technological advances that would make the Avenger a lot more competitive such as a VVT system and more recently direct injection. These would not only help the power, but would supposively help the fuel economy which is important with fuel prices these days. Right now, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, GM, Mistsubishi, and pretty much everyone except for Ford has more hp and torque with similar sized engines in their midsized cars than the Avenger R/T does and if Dodge wants to be competitive, they need to match the competition, let alone exceed it.

The Mustang GT is only rated at 25mpg on the highway when equipped with the 5-speed manual. The only version that gets 19/28 is the 4.0L V6 with a 5-speed manual. To better clairify my point, the 05-06 V6 versions only got 25mpg when equipped to their 5-speed automatic under the pre-08 rating system which is what a lot of V8 cars get on the highway including the GT when equipped with the manual. My point basically is that they should offer a V6 that has good fuel economy and reliability in either transmission choice.

The version of the Charger that gets 21/28 mpg is the 2.7L offering, the 3.5L offering gets 19/27 mpg. The 5.7L version gets 17/25 when offered in the RWD version and 17/24 in the AWD version. Comparing apples to apples, the 17/25 version is the more relevant one as the Mustang is only offered in RWD currently. Also it is more logical to compare the automatic version of the GT since the Charger unfortuneatly is only an automatic car. The automatic transmission version of the GT gets 17/23 mpg.

Although you are correct that the weight disadvantage that the Challenger might have if they do not take steps to make it lighter, could potentially make it lose any advantages it has in the power department, the difference is more accurately at around 750 lbs instead of 1000 lbs (curb weight of the Mustang GT is about 3356 lbs and the Charger R/T is around 4100lbs). So of this will depend also on the transmissions they decide to use.

I don't know how accurate it is to say that the Challenger will not be able to outrun the Mustang. The projected top speed of the 6.1L powered Challenger is 174 mph vs. the GT500's 155 mph. If the Chrysler estimates are accurate, it appears that for some reason the Challenger is just about as fast with the 6.1L as the GT500 is, possibly from the structure of the rear end and so forth, as this is also slower than the significantly less powerful 2000 Cobra R. Seeing what the SRT-8s have done so far with their automatic offerings does not seem entirely unbelievable for this to happen, but I would still prefer them to offer the 6.4L engine.