kevin, I realize there is a pretty sizable difference in 0.2 seconds and I fully acknowledge that the Challenger bests the Mustang GT in every performance category imaginable. But it doesn't best the Shelby GT500 (which in my opinion would have been a better comparison) 0-60. Please don't give me the whole supercharged thing either. Both cars, out of the box, the GT500 is faster. The Challenger does however best the GT500 top speed (170 vs. 155). But then again, who's gonna do 170 mph or even 155 mph? I don't happen to frequent drag strips, etc. and I certainly don't live and breathe car mods. I'm an all-original guy. So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's leave the multi-thousand dollar mods out of the discussion and all of the what-could-be and just talk straight up stock.
Personally, I'm more concerned about light to light performance than I am about competing on Speed TV's show Pinks... Light to light - I'm confident enough in my own driving abilities and my trusty 5 speed that I'd leave the SRT8 driver scratching his head. I certainly won't beat him, but I'm willing to bet I'd be a helluva lot closer than he probably imagined. Oh, and all the money in my bank account that I saved by not getting the Challenger, would make me quickly forget about the 0.2 second variance. On the other hand, chances are I'd be looking at any stock R/T Challenger from my rearview.
Not that I'm doubting you kevin, but I'd be curious to know what findings your research has turned up to prove your point that manufacturers are underrating their cars' performance times. I don't doubt for a minute that they underrate horsepower and torque, but actual performance times is hard for me to wrap my head around. Believe me, I'm not doubting that you've done your homework, I'm just curious if you can cite one example of a car that is faster then what it is actually being advertised as. Again, I'm not saying it's not true, it's just that I'm not aware of any. Enlighten me.
PS: And while we're splitting hairs on performance here is something to think about - the SRT8 has 9.74 lbs / HP and the Mustang GT is 11.81. That's like, what..... a 0.2 second difference? And just for good measure - the GT500's power to weight is 7.84 (3,920 lbs / 500 HP)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=115578
Love ya too bruh
ORIGINAL: kevin2323
albeeno open up your eyes. Car companys have been doing this for a long time. they underate their cars performance times, trust me i did my research. Also why are you suprised your car is so close to the srt8s performance times? first of all the 4.9 sec is underated but lets go by what you believe , the gt is 0-60 5.1. so your saying .2 of a second off 0-60 is nothing? that is alot in my book. people modify their cars to hell to shave off .1 off their 0-60. this car will eat the gt in top end and 0-60. i guess you should stick with your stang because if .2 off 0-60 is nothing for you then a .4 sec difference between the gt and the gt 500 should be nothing to you either. enthusiast and car mod nuts by srt8s and z06 and gt500 because they want the more performance oriented model of their company of choice. looks like you want viper numbers out of .4 liters added to an 5.7 liter engine, sorry you need to come down to earth.
ps: I still love ya,
