Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

$35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Old Aug 20, 2005 | 12:25 AM
  #46  
F1GT's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 535
From: Gotham City
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Good Price, I thought it would be around 40-45 for one. I love all the LX cars except the perceived quality is not there when I went to the dealer both times, first for the Magnum, second for the Charger. The Magnum I looked at briefly and it had some paint goobed on top of the door and the "HEMI" name was not very accurately painted on the cover. Then I went to see the Charger a few months after I saw the Magnum and it also had a problem with the engine cover, it was loose and will not stay put and the "HEMI" was all smudged up and the interior looked so bland and econocar like.

The SRT-8 looks awesome to me. The only problem with it is just that, it's just all looks to me. I feel the GTO was engineered better and has better quality. A GTO with a Charger SRT-8 body would be perfect for me
Old Aug 20, 2005 | 03:15 PM
  #47  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Originally Posted by Z284ever
Ummm....

Don't tell anyone, but IRS stole the Lindberg baby.......and.....is also a communist.

Those cars weigh alot because they're large cars, with rigid structures and lots of content. To say they're heavy strictly because of IRS is...well....silly.

You know, the Charger SXT has IRS and weighs under 2 tons, (3,800 lbs). The R/T weighs 4,100 lbs. If it had a solid axle would it weigh under two tons? I don't know...but I'd doubt it. We'd still need a fully developed live axle. One with various control arms attatched to it and probably also a heavy panhard arm (in addition to diff, cast iron rear end housing, two axles, springs, shocks, etc., etc.). We wouldn't be talking about an austere leaf spring truck rear end here.

I'd actually be curious to see what the weight difference would be. The SN95 IRS is often brought up as being heavier...but is that fair? It was reverse engineered to fit where the live axle fit....and had to use it's pick up point. It also had to use those notoriously heavy MN12 IRS control arms.

Before the '05 Mustang went to a lively axle, it was going to get the excellent and light weight Control Blade IRS from the Aussie Falcon. I'm pretty sure CB IRS had little or no weight penalty compared to the fully developed live axle, Mustang currently has..

IRS does cost more though. Ford has publicly admitted that they save $300 per car on Mustang. GM's savings on the now dead proposal to give the 5th gen one, would have been even less.
A certain person once used that to describe some fixed misconceptions.

1. The Chrysler 300 is shorter than a Chevy Impala, and smaller than a Bonneville via exterior mesurements. The perception that the 300 & Charger are large are a very clever design illusion.

2. MN12 Ford Thunderbirds & Cougars were the same size as Monte Carlos, but weighed nearly 3800 pounds. Cobra's IRS is actually not bad weight-wise. The iron arms do't do it any favors, but going by half the weight rule of thumb, I'd say switching to alumunum would have reduced the assembly's weight about 15 pounds. Not worth the extra cost, Ford decided.

3. Say Chrysler went with a live axle in the LX. The work of the subframe would be carried by the simple rear axle. Since the solid rear axle probally weighs about the same as the Diff, U-joints, halfshafts, & knuckles on an IRS system, we've just tossed away a pretty heavy subframe. In tossing away that subframe, we dont need as much structure enforcement to support it. Altogether, probally around 150 pound minimum savings.


Take a look at the entire subframe assembly that's needed to mount the IRS under the tail end of the Sigma Cadillacs. The Chrysler LX cars. The Mustang Cobras. The Lincoln LX. Then take a look under the tail end of our F-body. Not much to it



The Holden VE and the Omega cars used what was perhaps the lightest version of IRS, the semi trailing arms attached directly to the body. But there was still a sub assembly needed to attach the differential to the body. This version compares somewhat more favorably to live axles. Unfortunately, this isn't the IRS we're talking about.

Last edited by guionM; Aug 20, 2005 at 03:24 PM.
Old Aug 20, 2005 | 03:51 PM
  #48  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Originally Posted by guionM
1. The Chrysler 300 is shorter than a Chevy Impala, and smaller than a Bonneville via exterior mesurements. The perception that the 300 & Charger are large are a very clever design illusion.
Clever? It used to be that a clever designer could make a bigger car look smaller and sportier.

I don't think the LX "largeness" is mostly an illusion, though. It may not be much longer in overall length, because the long wheelbase allows for a good sized interior, and the long wb and rwd allow for shorter overhangs. The car is rightfully considered a large car. It is decently long, it is wide, tall, and HEAVY. Why they decided to make it look even bigger than it may really be is beyond me...

Eric Bryant has mentioned that perhaps they wanted to cash in on the SUV and truck craze in this country, figuring a fat looking car would fit in with the mentality of big vehicles that is still very popular here.
Old Aug 20, 2005 | 03:52 PM
  #49  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Originally Posted by guionM
A certain person once used that to describe some fixed misconceptions.
Yep, I know what you mean........

Sorry bud, I'm unconvinced.
Old Aug 21, 2005 | 03:12 AM
  #50  
RussStang's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Originally Posted by Z284ever

Before the '05 Mustang went to a lively axle, it was going to get the excellent and light weight Control Blade IRS from the Aussie Falcon. I'm pretty sure CB IRS had little or no weight penalty compared to the fully developed live axle, Mustang currently has..
.

You know, this isn't the first time I have heard this. I remember reading straight out of MM&FF that the IRS in the 05 Mustangs would incur little to no weight penalty, as the car was designed for it in the beginning. If/when Ford moves to the IRS on the Mustang, it will be interesting to see how much more/less the cars weighs with it.
Old Aug 21, 2005 | 03:36 AM
  #51  
RussStang's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,011
From: Exton, Pennsylvania
Re: $35,995 for the 425hp Charger SRT-8!

Originally Posted by redzed

I don't see where it's much of stretch to compare the Cadillac CTS-V against the Charger SRT-8. If anything, it isn't a fair comparison because the CTS-V's drivetrain is so very crude. Charger SRT-8 also owner won't have to worry about the "axle hop" and fuel starvation on high speed corners that plagued the CTS-V.
Your comparison is ridiculous, as is your demeanor. How do you know what the Charger SRT-8 will and won't have to worry about? I have heard of no one that has run their 300C SRT-8 on a road course. Not to say that is hasn't happened, but there are so few that do that even if this was an issue it wouldn't see the light of day. Yet another assumption that has no credence in reality. Your exaggeration is quite evident as well, as fuel starvation is definetly not nearly as big a deal on these motors as you play it out to be, and the "axle hop" you speak of actually has a GM notice sent out to all Caddy dealers on a fix for it should the owner be interested in it.

Its amazing that you can manage to test drive all the limited run vehicles that come out, because when ever I have gone to a dealer and tried to they always want a very serious commitment in the vehicle before hand.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
walt355
LT1 Based Engine Tech
15
Mar 16, 2016 09:35 AM
Bobczar
New Member Introduction
1
Oct 23, 2015 11:22 AM
cmsmith
2016+ Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and General Discussion
7
Sep 14, 2015 09:25 PM
silvermansteve
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
2
Mar 4, 2015 05:02 PM
Z284ever
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
28
Oct 11, 2002 06:45 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 PM.