In this Dodge video, the 2009 R/T's 1/4 mile performance is cited at 14.0 sec. and 0-60 mph at 5.5 sec.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldz-Gqlre6I

 

Sweet vid. Thanks for posting.

 

Surprisingly impressive stats for the the so-called mid level entry...

 

I would think that the R T would do a little closer to 5 sec.
Doesnt the GT do the 0-60 in about 5.1 or 5.2??? I was thinking or hoping at least the R T would get there in 5.3.
I remember that we were discussing this before on a thread and someone did the math about how the R T had more horsepower to weight than the GT so to me this is more of a dissapointment. Although 5.5 isnt bad im just kinda hoping this is more of a Ballpark number like they did with the SRT when we heard the 4.9 #

 

I do not know what to believe on the SRT...I have read anywhere between 4.7 - 4.9 and the fact that the R/T is 0.4 secs slower than a Mustang GT (which starts at roughly $26,500) is extremely disappointing. Furthermore, it is 0.1 seconds slower than the GT in the standing 1/4 mile. I wish I had a bumper sticker for my Stang that said "I GOT YOUR HEMI RIGHT HERE". All joking aside, I woulda thunk a final drive ratio of 3.92 would have given the R/T a little more giddy up out of the hole. If only there were a way to trim about 600 lbs from Challengers curb weight...

So, what is the extra $5,500 - $6,000 you are paying for the R/T (versus the Mustang GT) really for? I have been building my R/T on-line for weeks now and it always comes out to $32,380. The only thing that comes to mind is the uniqueness factor. Clearly there are not nearly as many out on the roads as the Mustang, but is it really worth the extra $6K? Personally, I guess that is what I need to wrap my head around. Camaro is beginning to look like a more viable option than Challenger (in the performance category). If it is all about performance R/T is the wrong choice. I wholeheartedly agree that performance is a factor, however, it is not the only factor! I cannot wait to see what the 2010 Mustang GT with 400 ponies and a revamped 5.0 liter motor is going to do to the competition? My guess is more of the same - keep forcing its competition to try and keep up...

In summary: you are buying the R/T because it is unique and absolutely sexy as Hell on the exterior...you are certainly not buying it for the "bang for the buck" factor and/or its interior stylings...

 

i agree with you albeeno...i've heard so many different numbers thrown around for the SRT that I dont know whether or not to believe the 5.5 0-60 and 14 1/4mile times we've been hearing. it doesnt make sense how the challenger with a 25-35 more hp than the charger daytona/charger r/t, aggressive gearing, manual transmission and a few pounds lighter, is registering the same time.

the only thing i can think of is dodge is being very conservative with those numbers at the moment and we really wont see the actual numbers until these are out on the streets, broken in and drivers become acustomed to the car.

anyone else think that its GOTTA be quicker than 5.5 to 60?

 

I think you raise a very valid point...my guess is they are just being conservative (perhaps to try an fool the auto insurance companies). I can't see how they would come out with a new Challenger R/T that is 0.4 secs slower than the GT. At the end of the day, that is a very significant variance.

 

I didnt even think about the insurance companies, but that actually makes more sense. do insurance rates depend on horsepower and torque or performance times though? I'm not sure...

but yeah, as you said, how can they come out with a performance oriented car and have it be beaten before its even built? doesnt make sense to me.

 

yeah in theory they would base the rates on the GT but dodge has a long history of under rating there performance times way back to the orignal 426 Hemi-Cuda that supposedly popped wheelies of the dealer lot. they under-rated the SRT there under rating the R/T also, it's not that hard to figure out, but what will the exact time be??