zero to 60 MPH times?
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Congratulations! I'll be looking for ya in my rearview, Sweetie. 
ORIGINAL: kevin2323
there are time slips for this........stop dreaming beeny ...it's over
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,755
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T.
Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T.
Next, you'll be trying to tell us that in the real world, Steve McQueen actually could have outrun the Charger. Remember, "Bullitt" is the whole reason bumper stickers that say "It Takes A Dodge To Catch A Dodge" exist.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Roswell,
If you just put a vanity plate on your Challenger that says QTR MYLR, you would be all set. [sm=laughat.gif]
If you just put a vanity plate on your Challenger that says QTR MYLR, you would be all set. [sm=laughat.gif]
ORIGINAL: RoswellGrey
Albeeno, careful when you go citing mythological characters. To begin with, Kowalski would have a four-speed R/T, since he'd be driving a 1970 model. And as we all know, NOTHING can beat a 1970 Challenger. "Vanishing Point" proves that. Hence, your argument is flawed.
Next, you'll be trying to tell us that in the real world, Steve McQueen actually could have outrun the Charger. Remember, "Bullitt" is the whole reason bumper stickers that say "It Takes A Dodge To Catch A Dodge" exist.
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T.
Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T.
Next, you'll be trying to tell us that in the real world, Steve McQueen actually could have outrun the Charger. Remember, "Bullitt" is the whole reason bumper stickers that say "It Takes A Dodge To Catch A Dodge" exist.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Congratulations! I'll be looking for ya in my rearview, Sweetie.
Congratulations! I'll be looking for ya in my rearview, Sweetie.
ORIGINAL: kevin2323
there are time slips for this........stop dreaming beeny ...it's over
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 439
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
HAHAHA That's awesome! Kowalski is the man!!!
Anyway, I just don't understand the variance in the performance times. I could see if it was a measley 0.1 or 0.2 seconds difference (between every article I've ever read on the R/T and what posters on this forum are CLAIMING). If that was teh case I wouldn't be concerned one bit. But it just doesn't add up for me!
Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't understand how a Test Driver for a widely respected automotive publication such as Road & Track gets 6.2 seconds 0-60 in his R/T and others on here claim more like 5.2. Obviously the guy with Road & Track knows how to drive a car and push its limits. Can you understand why I'm confused now?
HAHAHA That's awesome! Kowalski is the man!!!
Anyway, I just don't understand the variance in the performance times. I could see if it was a measley 0.1 or 0.2 seconds difference (between every article I've ever read on the R/T and what posters on this forum are CLAIMING). If that was teh case I wouldn't be concerned one bit. But it just doesn't add up for me!
Maybe I'm naive, but I just don't understand how a Test Driver for a widely respected automotive publication such as Road & Track gets 6.2 seconds 0-60 in his R/T and others on here claim more like 5.2. Obviously the guy with Road & Track knows how to drive a car and push its limits. Can you understand why I'm confused now?
I agree, it seems weird. I would credit variation up to about .5 second to 60 as normal. Surface, driver, altitude, temperature etc could account for that pretty easily. It might be a question of the 18's vs 20's. They have different rear gears, and different tires. It may be an issue with traction control. It can be defeated (at least on most cars it seems), but takes some trickeration to get it all the way off. None of that totally satisfies me, but if you assume the conditions were unfaforable, road and track had a bad day driving, they had the slower wheel package, and did not get traction control all the way off (which I think they complained about), it might just account for it. Still feels like a stretch, that might be how it went down.
Regardless.....
If you doubt any claims made by those timing at home, check out the Motor Trend article that I cited before.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Once you read that, the times in the low 5's will be right on par with an article you have read. So the pros are getting 5.1, and amateurs timing at home are seeing generally 5.2~5.3. All is right with the world.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
I don't know man. The `10 is nice, but I'm kinda partial to my design. Go figure. My biggest problem however is that I really, honestly, truly love the Challenger R/T...just wish I had a better handle on its true capabilities before taking the plunge. I realize it's now all about performance, but in this segment it's a pretty large factor. By the way, did you ever order the R/T Classic Package in B5??!?!!
ORIGINAL: kevin2323
So beeny, you liking that 2010 stang or you still looking at the challenger?
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Congratulations! I'll be looking for ya in my rearview, Sweetie.
Congratulations! I'll be looking for ya in my rearview, Sweetie.
ORIGINAL: kevin2323
there are time slips for this........stop dreaming beeny ...it's over
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
ORIGINAL: Albeeno
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
Hey Thor,
I respectfully disagree with your assessment about a Stock vs Stock match up of the R/T and a Mustang GT. You may have noticed in the article that it takes two shifts of that pistol grip to the get the R/T to 60mph. My little chick-car Mustang equipped with a wimpy 4.6 liter 3 valve V8 arrives at 60mph at the top end of 2nd gear. Even Kowalski himself wouldn't be able to beat a Mustang GT in a stock 6-speed R/T. Anybody claiming 5.0 - 5.3 seconds 0-60 in a STOCK R/T is absolutely full of it. The best I've ever seen is 5.5.
ORIGINAL: Thor77
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
I read that article too, and was quite surprised. Given that Dodge promised sub-6 sec 0-60, and we have examples here on the forums of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times better than Road & Track reports, I think they either got a car that wasn't quite running right, or just did not have a good test. Road and Track often seems to record competitive 0-60 times out there, but how to explain Motor Trend going 5.1 to 60, a Full Second faster????
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...lenger_rt.html
Albeeno, maybe we can find someone in your area with an R/T who would be willing to defend the honor of the Challenger at the strip. I really do not think the Mustang GT would pull on the Challenger R/T in a straight up, stock vs stock race. I would figure it as a winnable race for either driver that would be decided by launch and shifting.
On whether the R/T or the SRT is the enthusiast choice, I think any enthusiast with the bankroll would take the SRT. An enthusiast on a budget would do well with the R/T Track Pak and a couple of other options if needed. If you are going to buy an R/T with all the bells and whistles, and run the sticker up to 38-39K, there is no reason not to get the SRT, unless you really just don't want the extra power.
by the way beeny I am ordering a RT on monday in your fave color....b5 blue
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Beeno,
My srt challenger has the plate that reads QTR MYLR.
BTW:In my 3rd attempt at 0-60 is 4.82 seconds. I didn't even put much effort into it. With a couple of practice runs I know I can better that. My first attempt was 5.46sec and I just stomped the gas with esp, I had a little tire spin. Second launch was with esp off and stomped the gas, I had a whole lot of tire spin and a 5.92 sec. Neither the first or second launch had any rpms added prior to launch. 3rd launch had around 900-1000 rpms at launch and did not stomp the throttle. All launches were stand still no roll.
My srt challenger has the plate that reads QTR MYLR.
BTW:In my 3rd attempt at 0-60 is 4.82 seconds. I didn't even put much effort into it. With a couple of practice runs I know I can better that. My first attempt was 5.46sec and I just stomped the gas with esp, I had a little tire spin. Second launch was with esp off and stomped the gas, I had a whole lot of tire spin and a 5.92 sec. Neither the first or second launch had any rpms added prior to launch. 3rd launch had around 900-1000 rpms at launch and did not stomp the throttle. All launches were stand still no roll.
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Massachusetts
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
VERY NICE! 4.8 is not too shabby.
ORIGINAL: 70sguy
Beeno,
My srt challenger has the plate that reads QTR MYLR.
BTW:In my 3rd attempt at 0-60 is 4.82 seconds. I didn't even put much effort into it. With a couple of practice runs I know I can better that. My first attempt was 5.46sec and I just stomped the gas with esp, I had a little tire spin. Second launch was with esp off and stomped the gas, I had a whole lot of tire spin and a 5.92 sec. Neither the first or second launch had any rpms added prior to launch. 3rd launch had around 900-1000 rpms at launch and did not stomp the throttle. All launches were stand still no roll.
Beeno,
My srt challenger has the plate that reads QTR MYLR.
BTW:In my 3rd attempt at 0-60 is 4.82 seconds. I didn't even put much effort into it. With a couple of practice runs I know I can better that. My first attempt was 5.46sec and I just stomped the gas with esp, I had a little tire spin. Second launch was with esp off and stomped the gas, I had a whole lot of tire spin and a 5.92 sec. Neither the first or second launch had any rpms added prior to launch. 3rd launch had around 900-1000 rpms at launch and did not stomp the throttle. All launches were stand still no roll.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From:
RE: zero to 60 MPH times?
Who cares about a mustang??? Really??
If you want to talk can we talk about a used C6 for 28k and change??? I saw a few last night in my "quest" for the fastest car for under 30k One with a removable hard-top... (drools)[8D]... 2010 Mustang is hit and miss like the 2010 Camaro.. IMO...
If you want to talk can we talk about a used C6 for 28k and change??? I saw a few last night in my "quest" for the fastest car for under 30k
One with a removable hard-top... (drools)[8D]... 2010 Mustang is hit and miss like the 2010 Camaro.. IMO...
