09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Honestly Uro, what makes you think the GT will beat the Challenger? The weight looks bad for the Challenger but look at the lbs/hp that should be a signifigant selling point right? They'll be about dead even, I think.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
I just picked up a 2008 Mustang GT for a driver while I am waiting for the '09 Challenger. The Mustang is a nice car for the price and it runs good but..............It doesn't have the power of an SRT-8; period. It will probably be a good comparison to the R/T(as has been said already) but I would still say the R/T will be a little bit quicker. I am going to bolt on a few mods to the Mustang while I wait for the Challenger and see how it responds. One real sore point I noticed with the Mustang is the fly by wire T-body. Ford has it set up slow to respond to pedal inputs and it lacks throttle response compared to a cable. My wife has an '03 GT automatic(cable operated T-body) and it feels a lot snappier than my '08 stick off the line. Once you get underway it's OK. I am going to get a ECM flash that will correct this. I am curious to see how the Challenger will be set up in this area. I will weigh my Mustang at the local scale real soon to see what the reality is and will do the same when I get my Challenger just for comparison's sake. I have to say I am definitely happy to see these cars available even with the gas prices what they are.
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
I will start by welcoming Huntman USA to the site. Now I'd like to go through and discuss some areas that are not entirely accurate.
1. It's too close to call right now to make a judgement about the GT500 vs. the SRT-8 as the acceleration times reported by major sources indicate that the acceleration times are around 4.7-4.8 secs for the automatic and the manual by all logic should be faster and considering that the GT500 does the acceleration times in around 4.5-4.7 secs it is certainly possible. The thing the Challenger has in its favor when the manual is introduced is the 3.91 axle-ratio to the GT500's 3.31, which should help address some of the lower power output. Also the 6.1L is known for being underrated, and the weight difference is less significant at this level with only a 250lbs difference as opposed to the 500 lbs difference. Also, the Challenger will be faster in the top speed due to the lack of a governor that the GT500 has. So we will have to wait until the two are finally compared head-to-head on the track.
2. The 6-speed is not completely an advantage. The fact of the matter is the gearing for the GT is actually shorter when combined with the manual as the 1st gear ratio is a 3.38 with the 3.55 axle equals about 11.999 vs. the Challenger's 2.97 1st gear ratio with the the 3.73 equals about 11.078, with the fuel economy being the same, hopefully the closer gearing will pay off by keeping it in the peak range.
3. The V6 department isn't a guaranteed advantage for the Challenger. Although it produces 40hp, the fact of the matter is the Mustang has the advantage in the transmission department in terms of performance. The gearing on the Mustang's 5-speed automatic is set up for acceleration which comes at the cost of fuel economy, the Challenger's 4-speed is an early 90's design that was built to be practical and gets better fuel economy while not really boosting performance. On top of this, the Mustang has a manual that makes up for the automatic's lackluster fuel economy. Then the fact of the matter is the Mustang V6 weighs and costs less. The advantage that the Challenger has is the 3.5L V6 is a design that pretty much has any bugs it might have had when they updated it last in 1999 resolve; meanwhile, the 4.0L has been having issues since they changed it over to a SOHC engine in around the same time period. The 3.5L is a more reliable design which is a real plus.
I think what they basically did was they took a E-Class suspension and built the sedans around this, now this is a modified version of that platform; however, it isn't a completely re-badged Mercedes like the SLK was.
Also I have driven a Mustang and felt like a compact on the inside. Even though the last gen Mustang was smaller, it actually felt bigger on the inside.
Urlosingbd and MrKrisSullivan, I think it's going to be close and best to wait for the actual test. I doubt that Dodge would build the R/T without first making sure it was at least as fast as the GT; however, remember that lb/hp doesn't always guarantee a victory. We'll have to wait and see to be certain.
1. It's too close to call right now to make a judgement about the GT500 vs. the SRT-8 as the acceleration times reported by major sources indicate that the acceleration times are around 4.7-4.8 secs for the automatic and the manual by all logic should be faster and considering that the GT500 does the acceleration times in around 4.5-4.7 secs it is certainly possible. The thing the Challenger has in its favor when the manual is introduced is the 3.91 axle-ratio to the GT500's 3.31, which should help address some of the lower power output. Also the 6.1L is known for being underrated, and the weight difference is less significant at this level with only a 250lbs difference as opposed to the 500 lbs difference. Also, the Challenger will be faster in the top speed due to the lack of a governor that the GT500 has. So we will have to wait until the two are finally compared head-to-head on the track.
2. The 6-speed is not completely an advantage. The fact of the matter is the gearing for the GT is actually shorter when combined with the manual as the 1st gear ratio is a 3.38 with the 3.55 axle equals about 11.999 vs. the Challenger's 2.97 1st gear ratio with the the 3.73 equals about 11.078, with the fuel economy being the same, hopefully the closer gearing will pay off by keeping it in the peak range.
3. The V6 department isn't a guaranteed advantage for the Challenger. Although it produces 40hp, the fact of the matter is the Mustang has the advantage in the transmission department in terms of performance. The gearing on the Mustang's 5-speed automatic is set up for acceleration which comes at the cost of fuel economy, the Challenger's 4-speed is an early 90's design that was built to be practical and gets better fuel economy while not really boosting performance. On top of this, the Mustang has a manual that makes up for the automatic's lackluster fuel economy. Then the fact of the matter is the Mustang V6 weighs and costs less. The advantage that the Challenger has is the 3.5L V6 is a design that pretty much has any bugs it might have had when they updated it last in 1999 resolve; meanwhile, the 4.0L has been having issues since they changed it over to a SOHC engine in around the same time period. The 3.5L is a more reliable design which is a real plus.
ORIGINAL: snooter
did mercedes benz have any input into the design of the chally suspension?..i know the old crossfire was basicaly an slk suspension....plus anyword yet on when the convertible will be available with a factory shaker....that car just might be in my garage
did mercedes benz have any input into the design of the chally suspension?..i know the old crossfire was basicaly an slk suspension....plus anyword yet on when the convertible will be available with a factory shaker....that car just might be in my garage
Also I have driven a Mustang and felt like a compact on the inside. Even though the last gen Mustang was smaller, it actually felt bigger on the inside.
Urlosingbd and MrKrisSullivan, I think it's going to be close and best to wait for the actual test. I doubt that Dodge would build the R/T without first making sure it was at least as fast as the GT; however, remember that lb/hp doesn't always guarantee a victory. We'll have to wait and see to be certain.
__________________
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
"To Debate and Moderate" since 2006
College Graduate:
B.S. in Marketing
A.A. in nothing
The first 426 Dual Quad member.
The first to 2000 posts
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
ORIGINAL: RLSH700
I will start by welcoming Huntman USA to the site. Now I'd like to go through and discuss some areas that are not entirely accurate.
1. It's too close to call right now to make a judgement about the GT500 vs. the SRT-8 as the acceleration times reported by major sources indicate that the acceleration times are around 4.7-4.8 secs for the automatic and the manual by all logic should be faster and considering that the GT500 does the acceleration times in around 4.5-4.7 secs it is certainly possible. The thing the Challenger has in its favor when the manual is introduced is the 3.91 axle-ratio to the GT500's 3.31, which should help address some of the lower power output. Also the 6.1L is known for being underrated, and the weight difference is less significant at this level with only a 250lbs difference as opposed to the 500 lbs difference. Also, the Challenger will be faster in the top speed due to the lack of a governor that the GT500 has. So we will have to wait until the two are finally compared head-to-head on the track.
2. The 6-speed is not completely an advantage. The fact of the matter is the gearing for the GT is actually shorter when combined with the manual as the 1st gear ratio is a 3.38 with the 3.55 axle equals about 11.999 vs. the Challenger's 2.97 1st gear ratio with the the 3.73 equals about 11.078, with the fuel economy being the same, hopefully the closer gearing will pay off by keeping it in the peak range.
3. The V6 department isn't a guaranteed advantage for the Challenger. Although it produces 40hp, the fact of the matter is the Mustang has the advantage in the transmission department in terms of performance. The gearing on the Mustang's 5-speed automatic is set up for acceleration which comes at the cost of fuel economy, the Challenger's 4-speed is an early 90's design that was built to be practical and gets better fuel economy while not really boosting performance. On top of this, the Mustang has a manual that makes up for the automatic's lackluster fuel economy. Then the fact of the matter is the Mustang V6 weighs and costs less. The advantage that the Challenger has is the 3.5L V6 is a design that pretty much has any bugs it might have had when they updated it last in 1999 resolve; meanwhile, the 4.0L has been having issues since they changed it over to a SOHC engine in around the same time period. The 3.5L is a more reliable design which is a real plus.
I think what they basically did was they took a E-Class suspension and built the sedans around this, now this is a modified version of that platform; however, it isn't a completely re-badged Mercedes like the SLK was.
Also I have driven a Mustang and felt like a compact on the inside. Even though the last gen Mustang was smaller, it actually felt bigger on the inside.
Urlosingbd and MrKrisSullivan, I think it's going to be close and best to wait for the actual test. I doubt that Dodge would build the R/T without first making sure it was at least as fast as the GT; however, remember that lb/hp doesn't always guarantee a victory. We'll have to wait and see to be certain.
I will start by welcoming Huntman USA to the site. Now I'd like to go through and discuss some areas that are not entirely accurate.
1. It's too close to call right now to make a judgement about the GT500 vs. the SRT-8 as the acceleration times reported by major sources indicate that the acceleration times are around 4.7-4.8 secs for the automatic and the manual by all logic should be faster and considering that the GT500 does the acceleration times in around 4.5-4.7 secs it is certainly possible. The thing the Challenger has in its favor when the manual is introduced is the 3.91 axle-ratio to the GT500's 3.31, which should help address some of the lower power output. Also the 6.1L is known for being underrated, and the weight difference is less significant at this level with only a 250lbs difference as opposed to the 500 lbs difference. Also, the Challenger will be faster in the top speed due to the lack of a governor that the GT500 has. So we will have to wait until the two are finally compared head-to-head on the track.
2. The 6-speed is not completely an advantage. The fact of the matter is the gearing for the GT is actually shorter when combined with the manual as the 1st gear ratio is a 3.38 with the 3.55 axle equals about 11.999 vs. the Challenger's 2.97 1st gear ratio with the the 3.73 equals about 11.078, with the fuel economy being the same, hopefully the closer gearing will pay off by keeping it in the peak range.
3. The V6 department isn't a guaranteed advantage for the Challenger. Although it produces 40hp, the fact of the matter is the Mustang has the advantage in the transmission department in terms of performance. The gearing on the Mustang's 5-speed automatic is set up for acceleration which comes at the cost of fuel economy, the Challenger's 4-speed is an early 90's design that was built to be practical and gets better fuel economy while not really boosting performance. On top of this, the Mustang has a manual that makes up for the automatic's lackluster fuel economy. Then the fact of the matter is the Mustang V6 weighs and costs less. The advantage that the Challenger has is the 3.5L V6 is a design that pretty much has any bugs it might have had when they updated it last in 1999 resolve; meanwhile, the 4.0L has been having issues since they changed it over to a SOHC engine in around the same time period. The 3.5L is a more reliable design which is a real plus.
ORIGINAL: snooter
did mercedes benz have any input into the design of the chally suspension?..i know the old crossfire was basicaly an slk suspension....plus anyword yet on when the convertible will be available with a factory shaker....that car just might be in my garage
did mercedes benz have any input into the design of the chally suspension?..i know the old crossfire was basicaly an slk suspension....plus anyword yet on when the convertible will be available with a factory shaker....that car just might be in my garage
Also I have driven a Mustang and felt like a compact on the inside. Even though the last gen Mustang was smaller, it actually felt bigger on the inside.
Urlosingbd and MrKrisSullivan, I think it's going to be close and best to wait for the actual test. I doubt that Dodge would build the R/T without first making sure it was at least as fast as the GT; however, remember that lb/hp doesn't always guarantee a victory. We'll have to wait and see to be certain.
RHLS700,
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
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Wew!! I like, I like.
I really like the confidence you have in the new 5.7. Especially because I have the original 5.7 in my 03' Ram. I always said if they put this engine in a coupe I'd buy it. Well what do you know???
So im gonna do it. Forget about the GTO, or
fa getta bout it(Donnie Brasco) Mmm Mm Mmm. I can't wait, and truthfully your confidence 1971Chall definatly inspires me. I agree that the R/T is gonna be the best bang for buck, especially if your not scared to do something with it.
I really like the confidence you have in the new 5.7. Especially because I have the original 5.7 in my 03' Ram. I always said if they put this engine in a coupe I'd buy it. Well what do you know???
So im gonna do it. Forget about the GTO, or fa getta bout it(Donnie Brasco) Mmm Mm Mmm. I can't wait, and truthfully your confidence 1971Chall definatly inspires me. I agree that the R/T is gonna be the best bang for buck, especially if your not scared to do something with it.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,681
Likes: 1
From: China Grove NC.
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Good discussion. I guess we'll see the real world results soon and will read for ourselves. I only wish Ford had built a V-8 (without having to resort to a supercharger) to compete with Dodge and GM. Now GM finds itself doing the same with the high dollar Vette ZR-1[&o] If you have to supercharge then your engineers have ran out of ideas. At Dodge they keep adding technology to a real good package. This is my opinion and everyones got one... but others from the muscle car era agree and superchargers are nice. But should be added by a tuner or the owner. Factory added supercharger is just too easy and lazy way to make horsepower. Any Car Corp. could do it, just says we have run out of ideas and our tech is stagnent. So compare, but remember that the Challenger is NA and makes its power the Muscle car way with CID and high flowing hemi heads
I'll say that says it all.
I'll say that says it all.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
ORIGINAL: MrKrisSullivan
Wew!! I like, I like.
I really like the confidence you have in the new 5.7. Especially because I have the original 5.7 in my 03' Ram. I always said if they put this engine in a coupe I'd buy it. Well what do you know??? So im gonna do it. Forget about the GTO, or
fa getta bout it(Donnie Brasco) Mmm Mm Mmm. I can't wait, and truthfully your confidence 1971Chall definatly inspires me. I agree that the R/T is gonna be the best bang for buck, especially if your not scared to do something with it.
Wew!! I like, I like.
I really like the confidence you have in the new 5.7. Especially because I have the original 5.7 in my 03' Ram. I always said if they put this engine in a coupe I'd buy it. Well what do you know???
So im gonna do it. Forget about the GTO, or fa getta bout it(Donnie Brasco) Mmm Mm Mmm. I can't wait, and truthfully your confidence 1971Chall definatly inspires me. I agree that the R/T is gonna be the best bang for buck, especially if your not scared to do something with it.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
From: New Milford, Ct.
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Taking nothing away from all of this dicussion but, a few weeks ago I took my wifes 06 Mustang GT (Stock, auto) and tempted an 08 Charger Daytona for a little light to light action. Now, I am no slacker in the street fighting business as I am old school and can boast some pretty (in)famous cars in my time so doing the L-T-L tango is nothing new to me. Anyway, in roughly 3 city blocks the Charger had me by about four car lengths and was still pulling away until the light changed and we had to back it down. I had thought I would have a better chance since I had a good weight savings and to me seemed better power ratio. NOT....Not saying this was a definitive test or anything..just real world situation. With the Challenger, I can see many a 'Stang's getting eaten alive on a Saturday night!
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From:
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
Really??? A Daytona??? Should we say old school 5.7 now??? Just kidding I've got one. But man sorry for you, or should I say happy, If your gonna get a Challenger.
Yes that is exactly what I wanted to hear. Good, good news. Man this new 5.7 is really gonna be a beast in it's own right. Ugghhh im drooling now. [8D]
I've got one. But man sorry for you, or should I say happy, If your gonna get a Challenger. Yes that is exactly what I wanted to hear. Good, good news. Man this new 5.7 is really gonna be a beast in it's own right. Ugghhh im drooling now. [8D]
Super Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,503
Likes: 0
RE: 09 Challenger vs 09 Mustang (Hmm)
you should see better than the 23mpg sticker on the stick R/T
__________________
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.