Justine, since there's not much else to dialog about, let's continue to beat this dead horse. If all you want to do is go fast from 0-60, buy a bike. There are many other factors in the price difference and if you can't discern that, then a discussion with you is unwarranted.

 

Well most the comments relating to these comparisons had to do with the 0-60 times so that's what I brought up. I never said the mustang was the better car overall. I'm here so I obviously like the challenger better. I was under the impression that 0-60 was one of the most important things people look for in a muscle car, as the originals were mostly popular for drag racing. I missed the first generation of muscle car wars so maybe I just don't get it, but I think in this day and age of rising gas prices and global warming obsessions, the idea of the companies all trying to out-horsepower each other is unrealistic. They're obviously competing in other ways, such as handling, options, etc. But the main complaint still seems to be the weight of the car and how quickly it'll hit 60.

 

A more accurate match up but the fact of the matter is until they are actually put up against each other, nothing is resolved. The Challenger is still being judged against manufacturer stats, against past test trials. Kevin, although I agree with you, please calm down a little. The thing that is significant is that manuals generally cost less than automatics, which proves to me that when the Challenger is truly in full production, it will yield an even larger cost advantage over the GT500.

Albeeno,I'm sorry but you are wrong. The Challenger does defeat the GT. If you don't believe me, put both of them on a track and see the results. The much higher top-speed, and faster acceleration times is what puts the Challenger into the GT500's category and out of the GTs. When you put both the GT500 and the Challenger on the track you will also see a more logical comparison, especially when they drop in the manual option for the SRT. What this tells me is that the GT500 should be way better, but isn't. Having 75 more rated ponies and 60 more rated ft-lbs along with being lighter should make this no contest, but the simple fact of the matter is they are still within the same league. Still a stalemate. The GT500 is simply not as good as either the 2000 Cobra R nor the 03-04 Cobra (nicknamed the "Terminator"), it has way more power than both yet the Cobra R is still faster and it can't seem to surpass the last Cobra and they have Shelby's help this time around.

 

Im sorry RLSH700 but when someone calls me bias I defend myself, as I did. I didnt curse or use a bad tone of voice. I stated my facts and opinions in a mature way as anyone defending themselves and others would.


so my apologies but I dont think i went over the line or anything of that sort .

 

Kevin... I'm thinking all that snow must be getting RLSH down...

 

haha....guess he's gonna have to get some snow tires on his 09

 

Certainly wouldn't be recommending chains... [:@]

 

exactly why i didnt say that lol[:'(]

 

just as an aside.... Last year at the local 1/4 mile track I went up against a Chrysler 300 SRT8 two times in my Mustang GT. OK, so a 300 isn't a Challenger, but it is essentially a Charger, which is pretty much a Challenger. Anyways... it was neck and neck at the finish both times. We each won one race. My car was better off the line, but the 300 was faster through the second half of the course. Probably that tall rear end killed it on the launch. Now if they equip the Challenger SRT8 with a manual and a shorter rear end it will be very interesting. The Challenger is definitely a better looking car, imho, but I'm afraid I'll need a bit more performance to make the jump

 

were you completely stock ?> manual im guessing? srt8 drivers tend to have bad launches due to traction problems.... so it shouldve been close but he shouldve had you both times but nice race.... oh btw the challenger is shorter in the rear and longer in the front.... and its shorter heigh wise to its lx brothers..