Oh, I have no doubt that the new Challenger will out perform the old one. My point is a lighter one would perform even better.

 

from here:
http://www.autoweek.com/files/specia...oit/index.html

Specifications:
Length: 197.8” (5025 mm)
Wheelbase: 116.0” (2945mm)
Width: 78.6” (1997mm)
Height: 57.0” (1449mm)
Track, Frt/Rr: 64.0”/65.1”


Compare that to lets say the 300 SRT8 which has the same horsepower
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...100771#trimsel

Wheelbase (in.) 120.00
Length (in.) 196.80
Width (in.) 74.10
Height (in.) 57.90
Track Front (in.) 63.00
Track Rear (in.) 63.10

so.. 300 vs Challenger
Wheelbase: 120 vs 116
Length: 196.8 vs 197.8
Width: 74.1 vs 78.6
Height: 57.9 vs 57.0
Track Front: 63 vs 64
Track Rear: 63.1 vs 65.1

so this Coupe is Longer and Wider than the 300, not even an inch shorter... there is no way it's gonna weigh less than a 300 SRT8.. how much does the 300 SRT8 Weigh? 4160...

the 300 SRT8 can do low 13s.. i'm sure the Challenger will be able to as well.. maybe even the 13 flat they say it can do..

maybe also this is just a design concept, whereas if this car were to make production, it would be built on a new, smaller platform, where they could retain the proportions, but have a smaller lighter car.. i hope that's the case, because i do want to see the big 3 thrive

 

Does nayone else think that 13.0 in the quarter is kinda weak? That is great for a 300 or Charger but I would have expected more from the Challenger. It seems this car is only slightly quicker than an old LS1 F-body. I think the Camaro SS or Z28 or both will be faster than this car if all this info proves correct. The Challenger does not impress me at all. The only way it would is if it is priced under 30 grand, which it won't.

 

Maybe I'm naive... but 13.0 is mighty good in my book. Way faster than most regular folks can handle, without wrapping themselves around a tree.

A Challenger like the concept SHOULD be north of $30k IMHO. Maybe even $40k, certainly $35 - $38k.

 

If it gets the 425HP+ hemi I think it will be in the 12's.
There's chargers in the 12's with tires. I think that 13.0 is an average time for an average driver. Just like 13.6 might be an average time for a stock LS1.
Some go faster, some go slower. Just depends on whose behind the wheel.

 

He needs to "differently" lay off of the rock?
All of the above mentioned cars will outperform their older counterparts, but I would suspect that the fact that all of them will be much more powerful than their old counterparts will definetly be a large reason they get around the track much better. A 3800lb car does not feel nearly as responsive as one that is 400lbs lighter than it, no matter how you try to mask the weight. Ever drive a 3000gt? Those cars handle alright, but you can feel the weight through just about every steering transition you input to the vehicle. I remember not that long ago when everyone considered cars like the MkIV Supra, 03/04 Cobras, and 3000gt vr-4s to be too heavy for their own good. Looks like the 21st century pony cars are going to make those cars look like lightweights.


Yeah, 13.0 is still decently fast, but nowadays many, many more "common" cars are getting close to that territory, if not surpassing it. What makes a muscle car a muscle car? My bet would be muscle. If the new muscle cars can't move faster than an increasing amount of commonplace cars, what makes them muscle cars then?

 

While I do not disagree about muscle cars needing muscle, please show one "commonplace" car that does the 1/4 mile in 13.0. Not one that has been modded, I mean one straight from the factory that is "commonplace". Commonplace being defined as an oridnary, every day driver type of CAR.

 

Perhaps commonplace is the wrong word, but getting into the 13.0 sec territory is getting much cheaper.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...10_first_300c/

Not that expensive of a car, for the content you get.

http://www.pontiac.com/gto/index.jsp

Likewise for this.

http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews..._charger_srt8/

This as well.

 

So you are showing two SRT-8 cars, avg retail about 44k and 41k respectively-so not very commonplace, and the GTO. We all know the GTO is the performance bargain of this century (so far) and the other two have the same motor as the Challenger concept, are based on the same platform and are basically the same weight and size. Sorry Russtang, but you have shown top of the line cars that are about equivalent. 13.0, even 13.3 is still a pretty quick car. Currently if you want a faster stock car, you are going to start in the high 30's (good luck finding a Shelby for that, IF that is truly what the base model stickers at) to mid 40's.

 

In my book, these "new" muscle cars should be way faster than say an Evo or STi and 13.0 is too close in my book, especially for a car that will be in the mid 30's or more. The biggest thing is that more and more sedans are getting into the 13's and 12's. Yes some are high dollar cars but it would be nice to be able to hold your own against a Mercedes. I would like to see high 12's at 110+ from the Challenger and Camaro..................maybe a lot more for the Camaro.

 

So what your saying is that Challenger, which is a GT class car (like the GTO), and the Camaro (which HOPEFULLY will still be pony sized) should be faster than the new Z51 Vettes? Because to be "way faster" than an EVO or a STI, you would need to be in the mid- low 12's. ( I am using a somehwat arbitrary definition of "way faster" to represent .5-.7 seconds). I would like to see those type of numbers as well, but then again I would also like to date Heather Graham, don't see either occurence happening unfortunately

 

I absolutely agree!

The 3000GT's had every possible technological trick to make them handle. AWD, ABS, 4 wheel steering, ETC, electronic anti-dive, anti-squat, anti-roll.

But in the end they still handled like pigs....because you just can't fool mother nature.

I was thinking the other day..... why does my tired, 8.5 year old, 94,000 mile, SVT Contour, feel more fun to drive than a new G6 GTP? After all, they have very similar layouts, but the GTP has 45 more hp and more rubber. I realized it's because of mother nature. My SVT is 400 lbs lighter.

 

I absolutely agree!

I swear, it's amazing how jaded some modern muscle car fans have become. I recently got a 400 HP/TQ GTO with a great interior and real rear legroom, for about $29k. Modern crashworthiness, ergonomics, low maintenance and reasonable MPG. An easy 13.x - second car in the 1/4. Yet... I imagine some now consider that mediocre

If the new Challenger is out in a couple years with something north of 425 hp... it will be amazing. Even 400 HP is something I could only dream of just a few years ago... now it's in my garage

 

And I hope she continues to give you years of faithful service brother. I will look forward to lining up against GTO's with a Challenger, win or lose, it will be fun.


but............................. If I lose, I am pulling out my (insert top-o-the-line Camaro name here) and whooping some Goat butt!

 

OK. Commonplace was a really stupid way to write what I meant. It just definetly seems like we are seeing more and more cars on the road that are capable of getting near times like that, whatever the price may be. And when you take a look at some of the future concepts coming out, even more are coming down the pipeline from all brands.