[QUOTE=tdub2112;69313]But you need to remeber that the Mustang has been out for 4 years. the Challenger R/T ans SE have only been out for one. That's why the mustang is cheaper. Ford has gotten the efficiency of building a Mustang down to a cheap science. So give Dodge a year or two.(if they're still around).QUOTE]

You have to remember, however, that even though the Challenger R/T has only been out for 1 year, the 5.7 (although a lower hp version) has been out for several years in other models, like the Charger.

 

I will go back to the subject Camaro vs. Challenger. I guess we'll see on the streets which one does what. As for other pony cars we'll try to be more sensitive. I find the Mustang boys to be real easy to rouse. Maybe when the 5.3 puts down some good #s without being supercharged they will lighten up and be comfortable with what it is.

 

I thought you were going to back to the subject? Just couldn't resist one last quip could you. LOL

Considering the meager performance differential between the R/T and the GT - it's actually kind of embarrassing for Dodge.

Of the 3 "retro" cars the challenger is the best looking IMO. The mustang has the best interior of the two in keeping with the theme.

 

Your getting to know me too well. Yeah that was one more jab. And the performance of the 5.7 is really amazing. 390 HP out of 345 cubes is really unreal. Compared to the best stock 340 from 70 @ 290 hp... thats 100 hp more. I think the weight of the Challenger is its achiles heel. But I really enjoy that girth on the highway. Makes for a smooth ride. I think most would agree with you on the styling. Nod to the Challengers exterior and a nod to the Mustangs interior. I guess we should give a nod to the Camaros 426 hp.

 

I agree with the motortrend article. The Challenger is a GREAT cruiser. And for a long highway trip especially with anyone in the back it is the obvious choice. Corner carver it is not but then it wasn't really one of those back in the seventies either.

390 out of 345. Consider too that back in the seventies they rated those engines in gross horsepower. 390 now is more than 390 back then. I'm guessing by at least a good 8%.

 

I have a 70 and that is true about the handling. But it would be true for the Camaro and Mustang too. The Trans-am would be your car of choice in the 70s for handling and braking and it packed quite a punch engine wise too. Man these are the days... I really look forward to driving my R/T each time I get in and turn the key. Motor Trend shows us that each car is better than their 70s namesake and deliver it in spades. I look forward to seeing the 2010 GT and SS on the street and don't think for a moment I won't goad one into a little stoplight to stoplight.

 

I'll play with an SS on the street if/when I see one,but I have no reservations about beating it with my SRT unless I come into some money between then and now.As for a cruiser,yes the Challenger would make a GREAT road car for 2 people unless you're shorter than 5'11".I'm 6'3" and my seat is touching the back seat so NOBODY is getting behind me :-)

 

I test drove a R/T today.I took my dad to pick up his new Caliber SXT today in sunburst orange.They had a titanium R/T on the lot that a salesman was drivin.I liked it,pulled strong shifted quick and sharp.I was impressed.It has the makins of bein a legend.

 

not even remotely true if you are also taking the LS engines into account considering this is a challenger vs camaro thread...

 

how is it not true?

go look how much it cost to swap 410 gears into a mustang and the cost to do the same to a lx car.

it is one of the downsides to our cars. but hopefully in the coming years it will get cheaper.

when you sell alot of a car there is bigger aftermarket for it, which equals more competition, lower prices. the hemis are getting there but still pricey. And the Ls engines get more power from mods then we do. look at a cam change on a ls3...got 50 hp.