Jeremiah 29:11

The Challenger concept is 4160 lbs. The entire car is carbon fiber but has the big wheels an is on an LX platform.

Change the car to steel, make the wheels smaller and shrink it by 4" on the LY platform and you are probably back to 4160 lbs.

I am just guessing but those are some of the variables.

Axel

Slight comparison to what the production may way, very silght, would be the stock car that they are racing. Though actually now that I think about it, eveything under it is going to be totally different so actually I'm sure that's not a good comparison.

1 Bad Mirada

so this, like the 2001 Bullitt is basically little more than an appearance package. The 01 Bullitt was about 4-5 grand more than the base model GT...for some badges.

TechmanBD

It looks like they put the FRPP CAI and tune and I think the suspension is better that stock. From the description, as far as the performance, it sounds like the Shelby GT. But probably won't be as expensive, as it doesn't have the Shelby name on it.

RLSH700

Here is a site with more detailed info on fuel mileage ratings. www.fueleconomy.gov Now I'm going to warn you that you have to make sure of which ratings you are looking at between the 85-07 type or the 08 and after ratings. They have adjusted every category for the new ratings so you have to be sure which ones you are looking at.

The AWD versions of the Charger whether it is the 3.5L or the 5.7L are equal on fuel economy but the 3.5L lost 3 mpg in the process (possibly due to slight gearing changes plus the AWD system) and the 5.7L only lost 1 mpg.

Don't worry about the errors, Us all mistake made once in a while. I have driven all version of the 2008 Avenger and I agree that the 3.5L has plenty of power, but the issue is the competition is offering more and when you want to rebuild your image you have to match your competition if not exceed them. I have driven the competition (Aura, Camry, older Altima, etc.) and I hate to say it but they do feel a little more powerful. The reason why the fuel mileage has not improved much is due to the gearing and the lack of some modern technology. The gearing is still acceleration orientated at 3.43, if they want to be more competitive in the fuel mileage category they need to put it probably in the 3.07 range. The 3.5L is about the only new car that lacks a VVT system which would really help it stay more competitive in both categories. The SE and SXT both feel pretty powerless I agree. The SE would feel better though if they would have dropped in the new six-speed auto over the 40TES. The 2.7L V6 needs to be given the Donald Trump treatment (You're sludged!) as it really doesn't serve a purpose anymore and really was never needed in the first place.

Yes the 750lbs difference is quite significant. Hopefully they are able to come up with an idea on how to make it weigh less. It will be interesting to see how they do all of this.

Patrick: That's what it sounds like overall. Just another attempt by Ford to weasel a few extra dollars out of the consumers pocket book without a truely justifiable model, just like the Shelby GT is.

Axel

Thank you RLSH. Always good to have a conversation with someone who won't bite your head off when you make a mistake and can point you in the right direction of where he found his information. It is always great to have a nice conversation and/or debate with a fellow board man if you will.

Basically, we both agree on the same thing. Hopefully Chrysler/Dodge will start doing things that are going to make them or keep them competitive with todays market. There is some updating that they need to do, but I do wonder how much this new company is actually going to spend to do that? Do they want to make money before they spend money? Do they actually thing they are going to make money without spending any? I know one thing, the Avenger won't get an update for next year since it's an 08 model. Disappointing to say the least.

Yes, I'm really tired of seeing this Mustang with this small mod and that small mod. If someone would be so kind in 09 to help me rid my Mustang to get a Challenger, you know collect the insurance money, I would greatly appreciate it.

TechmanBD

All they had to do was make green a choice, and let everyone do it up like they want. I wish they had that color choice. My favorite color. Most of my new vehicles were a dark green. I take that back, with the mustang it is half of the cars I have had were green. 3 out of 6. When I got the other three, it was because they were not offered in that color.

1 Bad Mirada

on a somewhat unrelated note...we had a 3.5L 300 for about a week, and i was really pleased with it. the interior was more comfortable than the rental charger, and the 3.5L made it a fairly healthy car to drive. it romped the stratus from a dig and a low roll, and did nice smokey burnouts...

also, the 3.5L 300 got better mileage on the highway then did the 2.7L charger that we frequently have...and i drive pretty much the same way all of the time.

another point about the carbon fiber body panels. carbon fiber isnt always the lightest choice. the "popular" hood that many of the Evo8 owners switch to is carbon fiber, and it weighs more than the stock hood...and looks just like a cf rendition of the same hood.

RoswellGrey

Don't exaggerate, Bad Mirada. The badges were only $25. The rest of the money went for the gas cap door.

RLSH700

Axle: It was fun debating. I enjoyed the discussion of ideas. A little advice, don't wish bad luck on your cars because when you do, it will happen to the car that you like and the car that you don't like will end up spotless (believe me, I've been there before). Most of the answers to your question, we are going to have to wait and see.

Patrick: I know plenty of people that had 1st gen Intrepids with the 3.5L who switched over to the 2.7L in the 2nd gen hoping for better fuel economy who found that the 3.5L got the same fuel mileage and others had your experience of better fuel economy. Being that the models you drove were heavier and less arrow dynamic, I have no doubts that the fact that the 2.7L is very underpowered would come through even more and would as a result get worse fuel mileage. The 3.5L is a good engine, it just needs an update is all, since the last time it got an update was over eight years ago. I just want to see them being able to compete with the other cars in the same class with the same engine size is all.

TechmanBD: I hear you loud and clear about the dark green color choice. That is one of my favorite color on cars as well.

Back to the 2001 Bullitt, didn't they offer a Ram-Air or something along those lines as well? I remember the output being at least 5hp & 3ft-lbs of tq. These upgrades are very insignificant in performance-in fact, I think I remember reading that the Bullit was slower than the regular GT in some tests 0-60 for it was around 5.8secs; meanwhile, the normal GT was supposed to be around 5.6 secs-but they add a lot to the pricing. Also, didn't they have special gauges as well?