Cuda340

Here is a review of the Challenger that every "tree hugger" will love. See how many misstatements you can find in this article.

"Review: In a world gone green, there's still the Challenger

The 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8
By AARON COLE
The Aurora Sentinel
Published: Sunday, November 16, 2008 9:17 PM MST

When it comes to muscle cars, I’m sure I know more than a teenage girl — but just barely.

I know muscle cars have loud, interchangeable parts like carbs, headers and glasspacks that require folded arms, beer in cans and approving nods to discuss. Whether those carbs, headers and glasspacks bolt on to your car or insert nicely into the glove box is, however, beyond my mental reach.

It’s not my fault. I didn’t grow up in that era.

When dealers, auto makers and qualified mechanics performed services far better than a backyard mechanic — and AutoCAD drafting created automotive engineering that required a graduate degree to understand — muscle cars became as desirable as bell bottoms. The fad went away, and the fundamental understanding that just like land, God ain’t makin’ more fossil fuels, led to big muscle’s meltdown.

So, in 2006, when Dodge unveiled the Challenger concept on a $2.20-a-gallon world, most thought it was Dodge’s re-entry into the crowded retro muscle market. That same year, Chevy publicly announced their intentions to bring back the Camaro and Ford’s Mustang was just beginning it’s fifth generation.

What a difference two years makes.

Now, an mpg-conscious world isn’t taking too kindly to the idea of a muscle car that struggles to sip only a gallon of gas every 15 miles. Driving a car with more than four cylinders these days automatically qualifies you to be chased by the same Greenpeace fleets that hunt whaling vessels near Antarctica.

Deserving — and undeserving *— the 2008 Dodge Challenger has been a lighting rod for criticism.

Ever since the first limited-edition 2008 Challenger SRT8 models rolled off the Brampton, Ontario, Canada line and into the arms of uber collectors like Jay Leno and Craig Jackson, a scornful world has chastised the Challenger as the epitome of “Big Three” stupidity. The world doesn’t need a muscle car, and the world doesn’t need a 425-horsepower V8 Hemi. It doesn’t need a car that can’t handle in anything other than a straight line and on a sunny day, and the world doesn’t need a car that you can barely see out of.

The Challenger, it turns out, is all those things.

So explain to me why the 2008 Challenger can stop more traffic than Victoria’s Secret lingerie models in a water balloon fight?

I’ll give you a hint: It’s not because people want to shake their heads at it.

Nope, the 2-ton Dodge bullet is a 2-ton reminder of how much Americans used to love their backyard beauties that spawned countless General Lee knockoffs. It’s a reminder that with enough American brainpower we can make something that is stupid, sexy and fast all at the same time. The Challenger, by the way, is all of those things, too.

Too bad sitting in it is unimpressive to say the least.

The only dead giveaway that you’re buckling into a two-door rocket are the white “SRT8” gauges staring blankly at you. The interior is surprisingly comfortable and bare for a halo, best-we-have offering by Chrysler.

But then again, you didn’t buy this car for the navigation system and rear-view mirrors.

Consider the calorie expended to push the start button as the best return-on-investment expenditure you’ll ever make in a Chrysler vehicle.

Without much effort, the massive Hemi engine rumbles to life and lovingly shakes the car into creation. The exhaust note at idle is serene and subdued, but hauntingly portent of the power underneath your right foot.

At first start, almost by nature, my brow sunk lower, my hair got longer in the back and my right foot got heavier — call it octane-induced devolution.

The loud revs and under-5 second 0-60 time does come with its penalties though. In a straight line, the Challenger is fast, loud and fun. Turning, it’s clunky, nearly unwieldy and a handful to corral — even with traction control on.

Nimble, the Challenger is not.

Each potential buyer of the Challenger, along with an IQ test, should be administered a vision test, because a Sherman tank could get lost in the Challenger’s blind spots.

But don’t expect to buy a 2008 Challenger anytime soon.

The $40,000 SRT8 sold out long ago because Chrysler only produced about 3,600 of them. Expect to see the 2009 Challenger hit showrooms soon, equipped with a six-speed manual (our model, like every 2008, came with an automatic) and a drastically stupid option for a V6 under the hood for those who like the body but can’t take the bite.

It’s hard for me to believe that this car’s production will last longer than a 2- or 3-year cycle, and considering that the Viper’s sales are in the toilet and Chrysler may soon join it, the flagship car for a fledging auto maker is everything it should be: impractical, nearly undriveable, tremendously fun and turns every head within a city block.

For a Detroit, big muscle swan song, the 6.1-liter Hemi sings a delightful tune."

mopar2ya

At least he admits:

"I’m sure I know more than a teenage girl — but just barely."

But even that I would have to disagree with...

canadiancanuck

"a Sherman tank could get lost in the Challenger’s blind spots. "

hahahah it is true in a sense, the blindspots are annoying at first but it could be worse, I have to look down and twist the neck in my FJ,

the only thing I would like to bark at is the as much as I WANTED a Hemi in my car, the sheer fact that the insurance co was salivating at the mouth to hike up my rate was a deterent enough , let alone the Premium fuel that I already feed to my FJ at almost $120 a tank, so I opted for the V6 just for price and fuel affordability alone. why should I be labeled a panty wieght because I opted out of a Hemi?? I had a turbocharged import wagon (320hp front wheel drive) and the premium fuel costs on that alone would have made your head spin, I would rather have the V6 and afford to drive it rather than have a bigger engine and it sit in my garage. Take it which ever way, I know I'm happy either way, I enjoy the car, Hemi or not.

brucer41

As the saying goes, cant see the forest for the trees. Clearly this idiot must be a fashion reporter or maybe a food reporter. For sure, one thing he is not is a car reporter.

BLK 6050

His admitted lack of knowledge doesn’t excuse him for writing a story that is filled with opinions passed off as facts. I wonder if he has ever been in a Challenger much less driven one. For the uneducated who have never been around a Challenger or old muscle cars…they will accept everything in the article as factual, which is really unfair to both Challengers and there owners. I find his “review” of the new Challenger to be very lacking….he needs to get his facts straight before writing on a subject that he knows nothing about….
He should have done more research on the subject "before" writing the story.

BUDMAN

Take your private jet to ask for a bailout of your company

Here are 3 stories Cramer thinks Chrysler is dead

Auto execs grilled over private jets
Nov. 20: The CEOs of the Big Three automakers, who are seeking government funding to help their ailing industry, are under fire over flying to hearings in D.C. in private jets. CNBC's Phil LeBeau discusses controversy on 'Morning Joe.'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...19617#27819617

Cramer on stocks plunge, automakers
Nov. 20: CNBC’s Jim Cramer talks to TODAY’s Meredith Vieira about the Dow’s five-year low and the proposed automaker bailout being debated in Washington.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...18819#27818819


Plans for Big Three bailout stalled
Nov. 20: Detroit CEOs face criticism for flying to congressional hearings in private jets, a factor that has stalled the proposed automaker buyout plan. CNBC’s Phil LeBeau has the latest from Washington.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...18698#27818698

RLSH700

You know something this cry baby should spend his or her time criticizing cars that are meant to get better fuel mileage and don't as opposed to models that have come a long way. To the writer of this article, GET A LIFE. The Challenger is not about the interior, it is not supposed to feel nimble, it is not supposed to be the color of snot that you identify your agenda with. It is supposed to be loud, the engine is supposed to shake the car, it is supposed to be fun for people who are in touch with the heritage of automobiles whom for your information come from a diverse background and a variety of education fields, and because they do not enjoy toilets that spray water on their rear-ends like you do must be in your view backwards, inferior, and evil. Thank you for your contribution to propaganda that is all too common from such great enlightened individuals like you who have no understanding of the value of history, the significance that this car features in unlike models that you probably enjoy Yugos, Geos, and Priuses, yield a much higher fuel efficiency gain than its predecessors had.

If you want to critic models here are a few to critic: the Honda Fit, Toyota Corolla, Chevrolet Aveo, Honda S2000, Mazda RX-8. The Fit gets worse fuel economy than the Civic despite having a 300cc smaller engine. For those of you with your enlightened education, this should yield better fuel economy, but because the EVIL company that wants to DESTROY the Earth for a PROFIT made this because the styling is more useful and enjoyable for SELFISH people who simply don't care enough to buy the more efficient EARTHSAVING Civic. The new Corolla to its gets 2 mpg lower fuel economy than the previous model even after the new EPA rating adjustments are made. The Challenger gained 1mpg more on the V6 version and 2mpg on the 5.7L version over the older 5.7L versions featured in the Charger & 300. The Chevrolet (Daewoo) Aveo gets only 34mpg instead of the 37mpg found with GM's homebuilt Cobalt when the engine size difference is a 1.6L in the Aveo and a 2.2L in the Cobalt. To add insult to injury the Metro that it could be considered a replacement for achieved 38mpg with the larger engine option. If this is to be considered a TRUE fuel efficient effort it should be able to at least match that. The Honda S2000 gets the SAME fuel economy on the highway as the GAS GUZZLING V8 in the Challenger R/T and the S2000 is only a 2.2L I4. To make matters worse the EARTH Killing Challenger R/T automatic gets a better air pollution score than the tiny S2000. GASP! The Mazda RX-8 has a much smaller 1.3L rotary engine but it only gets between 22-23mpg while being slower than any V8 variant.

The issue is the S2000 is the one that deserves way more criticism because everything in its formula implies that the model should get outstanding gas mileage all except that the S2000 has super short gearing. The new Challenger does an excellent job of fuel efficiency maximization despite having most of the elements that points towards getting lower fuel economy and this is why the Challenger will succeed. People like this person are clueless as they seem to forget that when people went away from muscle cars, they did NOT go to Yugos and Geos, but to trucks and SUVs which get even worse fuel economy and even those have improved a lot. The Challenger is not all that much worse in fuel economy than many of the other mainstream cars. The mid-sized cars only get 1-3 better mpg than the Challenger in their V6 variants and the Challenger is without a question, worth that small sacrifice even at $4 a gallon gas (or if you got the incentive $2.99 incentive, you come out better in that regards anyhow). The Challenger replaced the Magnum in the line-up; therefore, they already had this kind of entry in the segment, beyond just the Charger and 300.

Also the Viper's sales have little to nothing to do with the fuel mileage. It is the price tag and the lack of an automatic option. If it was the fuel mileage, why would people buy the Grand Cherokee SRT-8 that gets 14mpg on the highway when the Viper gets 22mpg? If you had any sense of business and marketing beyond what you regurgitate and repeat like a parrot from a bunch of out of touch paid off fools, you would be able to understand this, but as it appears that your I.Q. is probably below the exterior temperature (if even that), you probably be better to eat your granola, connect a catalytic converter to your rear when you have to pass gas, and make your plans of to burn cars as a way to "save environment."