View Single Post
Old 08-13-2008, 11:09 AM
  #5  
Albeeno
Senior Member
 
Albeeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default RE: First R/T Performance Times

I do not know what to believe on the SRT...I have read anywhere between 4.7 - 4.9 and the fact that the R/T is 0.4 secs slower than a Mustang GT (which starts at roughly $26,500) is extremely disappointing. Furthermore, it is 0.1 seconds slower than the GT in the standing 1/4 mile. I wish I had a bumper sticker for my Stang that said "I GOT YOUR HEMI RIGHT HERE". All joking aside, I woulda thunk a final drive ratio of 3.92 would have given the R/T a little more giddy up out of the hole. If only there were a way to trim about 600 lbs from Challengers curb weight...

So, what is the extra $5,500 - $6,000 you are paying for the R/T (versus the Mustang GT) really for? I have been building my R/T on-line for weeks now and it always comes out to $32,380. The only thing that comes to mind is the uniqueness factor. Clearly there are not nearly as many out on the roads as the Mustang, but is it really worth the extra $6K? Personally, I guess that is what I need to wrap my head around. Camaro is beginning to look like a more viable option than Challenger (in the performance category). If it is all about performance R/T is the wrong choice. I wholeheartedly agree that performance is a factor, however, it is not the only factor! I cannot wait to see what the 2010 Mustang GT with 400 ponies and a revamped 5.0 liter motor is going to do to the competition? My guess is more of the same - keep forcing its competition to try and keep up...

In summary: you are buying the R/T because it is unique and absolutely sexy as Hell on the exterior...you are certainly not buying it for the "bang for the buck" factor and/or its interior stylings...
ORIGINAL: MrKrisSullivan

I would think that the R T would do a little closer to 5 sec.
Doesnt the GT do the 0-60 in about 5.1 or 5.2??? I was thinking or hoping at least the R T would get there in 5.3.
I remember that we were discussing this before on a thread and someone did the math about how the R T had more horsepower to weight than the GT so to me this is more of a dissapointment. Although 5.5 isnt bad im just kinda hoping this is more of a Ballpark number like they did with the SRT when we heard the 4.9 #