ORIGINAL: 1971Chall
RLSH700,
1. I would disagree on the GT-500 vs the SRT-8, having a supercharged '03 Cobra myself and participating in dyno testing of the GT-500 in one of the clubs I am in. I would agree up to 60mph it will be somewhat close but the supercharged car will walk away from it after that. Trap speeds have shown that on average, the GT-500 is 4 - 5 mph faster compared to what is published for an SRT-8. ET is a function of traction and launch so the faster car may not be the winner if it can't or doesn't use it's power advantage in the launch. The truly stock GT-500's I have seen usually put out 420 -430hp at the tires. SRT's have shown approx 380hp at the tires. Figure in a 200lb weight disadvantage along with lower output and I just don't see an SRT-8 beating a GT-500 if there is no driver error. When my '03 was stock it put down 367hp and 365lbs of torque to the tires. I ran it one time at the track in pure stock form and it ran a 13.5@110mph with a 2.20 60ft. Wheel hop and traction problems were an issue for me that night. My car weighs in at 3660lbs on a certified scale. My 2003 would have been a good race for an SRT-8 stock for stock assuming I did a little better getting it off the line. Not waving the Mustang flag just stating what I have done and seen that I know are facts. The only wild card here is the SRT-8's have not been out in the real world(yours and mine) to see what it will do. Books are not the end all by any reason. The rev limiter on the Mustang is all that's keeping it from going faster. I have personally had my Cobra up to 160mph at the top of 5th gear with 6th still to go. I had the speed limiter turned off when it was tuned. Again not knocking the Challenger's potential; it's just not a real all out comparison if one is electronically stopped artificially.
2. Completely agree with you here.
3. Agree here also.
4. I agree with the rest of what you have stated. Your description of the new Mustang interior space is actually pretty accurate. That is how I see it. It's not uncomfortable but does give you a feeling of everything being closer to you. Again, working over at Mopar Performance, trust me the new 5.7 will not be a disappointment. I am confident it will outperform a GT Mustang. Not tremendously but it should have the edge. I think the R/T will end up being the best bargain overall of the Challenger lineup. Not downing the SRT-8 as it will still be the big dog for sure but after seeing what we did with our 5.7 Magnum wagon and bolt on's the 5.7 can easily make up the 50hp difference in a hurry. For the price difference between the 2 this is what's swaying me. Regardless let's get 'em while we can because with CAFE's new insanity on the horizon this will be 1974 all over again in a couple of years. WELCOME TO THE SITE ALSO HUNTMAN USA!
Okay, I have since watched the comparison that MT did between the two with the Challenger having an automatic, and made some further calculations with the manual vs. the automatic's offerings I have some additional points to make. It appears that you are correct that the supercharger really seemed to pay off more for the quarter mile run; however, given all the advantages the Mustang should have against the Challenger in this equation, the victory should have been larger which makes it possible that the manual could make up much of the difference. During the beginning of the test the Challenger was actually leading the Mustang, but the Mustang caught up and beat it in the 0-60 and 1/4. The manual's combined gearing would equal about a 3.23 axle ratio with the automatic's gears over the 3.06 axle ratio that was used with the automatic. This will further help out the starting point advantage. As I have mentioned in another post, the 1st to 2nd gear jump is smaller with the manual than it is with the automatic which will help to better maintain the advantage it already had