Yeah, I completely forgot about those two. Those are some great examples of cheap cars that run their asses off, and are only getting faster with the newer up and coming models.

 

LOl cheap? man I wish I had your bank account then. The Evo for the base Lancer Evolution RS is 30k, the MR starts at 36k and change. The Imprezza WRX STI starts at 33k. Neither of these cars are what I would call cheap. What they are is factory made rally cars. When the Acura RSX, G6 GTP, Cobalt SS, Accord coupe, etc start running LOW 13's stock, then you are right, low 13's will not mean much for a muscle car. Until then, I think people really need to take a step back and think about what they are saying.

 

Perhaps I am too accustomed to seeing the cars in the overly rich area I live in, but I see Evos and STIs all of the time. It is not like these are some rare cars here. I am sure there will be no shortage of mid level v8 5th gens Camaros that will sell for just shy of $30k, so its not like they are going to be inexpensive either. The STI may start at 33k, but there aren't too many options for the car, so its not like there are going to be many at all selling for over 34k. Oh, and an Evo RS is definetly not a 30k car, it is a 28k car.
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/mitsu..._overview.html
Mr is a 34,699
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/mitsu..._overview.html


I have taken a step back numerous times to think about what I am saying, and regardless of what people think is too fast, technology will press on. I don't want to see the 5th gen getting beat by cars I see on the road all of the time. When the Evo X comes to market, word is it will be sporting a 350hp turbo 4, and it is going to still be sold at nearly the same price point. That is definetly going to be a 12 seconds car, and the sweet DSG style trasmission is going to make it one hard car to pass up. I would bet the the STI is going to be upgraded to keep up with the Evo. I have absolute confidence that cars will keep getting faster for cheaper; it is the nature of competition. I just want to see the Camaro keep its rightful postions as on top against anything in its price range, regardless of whether it is a direct competitor or not.


This is pointless to argue about anyway. Cars will get faster. Who would have thought 10 years ago that you could buy an Accord v6 and run faster than a 5 liter Mustang GT?

 

I still think this whole comparison with import econo-rockets is misguided anyway. Those who compare modern muscle cars with the Accord V6 don't really "get it" as to what muscle cars are all about. American muscle cars have always been substantial, hefty and loaded with torque. It's like comparing a USMC Ka-Bar combat knife with a street punk's switch-blade. Part of the charisma of muscle IS the hefty feel of a big hunk of Amurrican Iron.

And this pricing on the Evo... the car doesn't seem like such a huge bargain to me. edmunds.com has the true market value street price on the base Evo RS (no options are available) at $29,274 not $28k as some wishful thinkers here have posted. (I won't even go into the ridiculous ripoff the more expensive model variants such as the Evo MR clearly are). What does one get for essentially the same price I got my GTO for? Lets see... no power windows, no power locks, no 6-disk stereo, no DIC, no leather, no interior color choices, no integrated in-glass stereo antenna, no torque (to speak of) below 2-3k RPM, no rumbling burbling V8 exhaust. Bleah. And a whopping TWO exterior color choices. Talk about apples - oranges... (personally, if someone wants an all-weather sport sedan, I believe the Grand Prix GXP is a much better performance value than an Evo, with an edmunds street price of $27,860 comparably equipped, more HP/TQ than the Evo, HUD, and V8 exhaust song).

One more thing. A lot here are acting like the new Challenger has already hit showroom floors. It's a CONCEPT. How does anyone here know what the car will have if/when it is produced? Who here would have predicted, a few years ago, that DCX would now be selling a SRT8 Charger with well north of 400 HP? The big three makers are a moving target too.

 

We know the Challenger is just a concept but a concept that is very close to a production car and many parrallels can be drawn between the "concept" and what DCX already has.

They are moving targets too, and that is why you have to really "wow" the public with the car when it is introduced. This is why I think the Camaro is really going to have to be stunning in every way to be a success.

 

Interesting, which is why I think this Challenger concept should be the Charger, and the Charger (4 door) as it is should have simply been called the Magnum (so there would be a sedan and wagon version of the Magnum).

The "hefty" American iron romantic view of muscle cars may be true in a way, but that is more fitting of "muscle" cars like the Chevelle, GTO, Charger, Buick GS, etc. The "pony" cars like the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Cuda, Challenger, etc were not as big and heavy, and were about handling as well as speed.

It would be cool for the Camaro to remain a highly muscular pony car, not a "muscle" car in the Chevelle SS454 sense of the word. If the Challenger ends up as big and heavy as the concept is indicating, I think it will have morphed into an outright muscle car, in a way.

 

The original 'pony' cars were lighter than the original muscle car coupes - but that distinction is essentially meaningless today. It's folly to try and claim the 2006 Mustang's substantial curb weight (worse yet the VERY hefty GT500 coming soon) still qualifies it as a 'pony' car. If the GT500 is a pony car... the new GTO is too!

 

Remember, a big block challenger weighed 3800 lbs, and was 191" overall. I have always "challenged" (no pun intended) the classification of the Challenger as a pony car. The 'Cuda was a pony car, rode on a shorter wheelbase than the Challenger and was a smaller overall car.

 

http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/mitsu..._overview.html

http://www.automotive.com/2006/101/m.../1243/pricing/

http://www.aicautosite.com/Mitsubish...Evolution.html

http://www.carsdirect.com/research/m...lution/2005/rs

Perrhaps when you said wishful thinkers, you meant to say correct thinkers?

How exactly is the MR overpriced? If you were in the market for such a car, which I have gathered by the kind of posts you have written over the last year you definetly are not, what would be a fair price for an Evo MR, or an Evo in general for that matter?

I have no idea where you are getting your extremely innaccurate information from. Only the RS comes minus these options, and you can order a package to the RS that returns many of these ammenities. A base Evo, which is cheaper than a GTO, comes with all the power stuff, and cd player, and the nice Recaro seats (although they aren't leather). The interior of an Evo isn't as good as the GTO, but your information on its standard equipment is nowhere near right. Suffice to say, you have never been in one, have you? I don't need to know what kind of color choices they offer Evos in to know they offer much more than two, unless I have just been seeing Evos that have been painted by the owners the second they are bought from the dealer, which is doubtful.

 

Another thing about the Evo and STi, they have been dubbed by some of the press as "the new muscle cars" so there is even more incentive to put these vehicles in thier place. I want the real American muscle cars to run circles around these cars at a comparable price and I am not just talking about pure acceleration.

 

Yeah, I have heard them referred to as well. Whether it is designed to compete with it or not, there will be Camaro models in the Evos/STIs price range, and I would like to see a Camaro model that is priced similiarly be able to hold its own, or bring down these two cars.

 

Ah, I did not realize that. I thought the Cuda and Challenger were more or less twins, like the Camaro/Firebird.

I will say that it isn't really useful to compare lengths and weights directly between the 60s and now, because everything was bigger back then. You have to look relative. Back then, family sedans were well over 200" long, so a car could be considerably smaller and still be large by today's standards. So, for example, though a Challenger may have been 191" long then, how does that compare to big, normal family sedans of the day? Say 191" vs. 210", for example. With today's more compact sizes (in some dimensions), a roomy Chrysler 300 is 197" long (or whatever the number is). But the Challenger concept is not similarly smaller than the sedan (in fact is bigger, and possibly heavier).

With weight, it is also hard to compare directly because of all the new safety requirements and features available today. Advanced materials have helped lighten things up a bit. But ever increasing safety standards require more robust structures, plus additional features (airbags, bumpers, etc), which adds weight. Plus, we want luxury features and quiet interiors, which also add weight.

Like BigDarknFast said, though, a Mustang GT weighs 3500 lbs. How does that compare to regular family sedans of today? Well, compared to the larger, V6 fwd midsizers and full sizers, it is similar or slightly lighter. Compared to a fellow V8 powered car like the Charger or even a Crown Vic, it is significantly lighter.



I guess this doesn't really matter; I'm sort of rambling. I think I'm still sort of numb at the idea of a 3800 lb Mustang GT500, though at least there the weight can be partially explained by the addition of the iron block and blower.. A 4100 lb Challenger that is BIGGER than the 300C/Charger/Magnum is just nuts to me. A 3700 lb Camaro would be heavier than I want to see, but to have the safety and other features the market is demanding, it may become a reality. Again, though, if the Mustang GT is 3500 lbs now, I see no reason why the Camaro should be heavier. It has a lighter, N/A engine and would presumably be similarly sized...I'm wanting to say that if it came out BIGGER than an Impala SS, it ought to be a Chevelle not a Camaro...

People are saying that the Mustang might get heavier as it is improved for crashworthiness. Do we really expect a 200+ lb addition when beefing up the structure a bit? Were they really that shortsighted when designing a new from the ground up Mustang for '05? Surely they didn't come out with a car only to have to completely redo it for crashworthiness a few years later.

It still sort of blows my mind that the F-cars were considered porky at 3400-3600 lbs when Eclipses and Integras and all that were the darlings of the media in their svelte 3000 lb range. Now the Eclipse is about the size and weight of a 4th gen, as is the Mustang, and the new Charger is going to make my B4C look like an RX7 in terms of weight...

My head hurts now. Sorry for the rambling post...

 

I wonder about that myself.

BTW, I agree totally with the rest of your post as well.

 

I don't disagree with the size of today versus then not being an apples to aples comparison. As an example, the 1970 roadrunner was 200" overall and weighed two tons (equipped with a hemi and a 4 spd), so what was a midsize car back then, is in fact approximately equivalent to a full size sedan of today.

For the record, I hope that the Camaro comes in around the 3600 pound range. That would make it comparable in size and weight to the Mustang, and keep it within the "pony car" classification (well the modern classification at least). My point all along has been, and still is, that the Challenger was basically a GT sized car back then, not a pony car, and in fact it still is today.

The Camaro should definitely be lighter, handle and brake better, get better gas mileage and be more "sporty" to drive. However, having said that, I think DCX is DEAD ON in their interpretation of a MODERN DAY Challenger. Not all cars are designed to be a pony car; the Challenger wasn't really one in 1970, and most definitely isn't one based on the Concept we see today.

People are entitled to like it or hate it; but like it or hate it in the context it is meant to be viewed in: A Large, Fast, GT touring car. For me at least, this car fits my desires of a more family friendly performance coupe. It is exactly what I want and need for my next car. When the uber-Camaro comes out, having a car like the Challenger in my stable will make it much easier to live with a high strung performance pony car.

 

Hmm... well your first link you posted above in your post confirms what I said, with the exception of power locks/windows (which are only apparent from the photos in the yahoo link). So maybe the Evo does come with those (plus, I just learned, a digital clock! Ooo! ). But I stand by the rest of it... no leather, no interior colors, no integrated sleek antenna, no DIC, two exterior color choices (confirmed in your yahoo link), no multi-CD stereo, and judging from the pix, no steering wheel-mounted stereo controls either. I've not sat in one of these tinny econoboxes (which BTW edmunds criticized for their harsh ride)... should I? In fact I did sit in a Subaru WRX at the last Detroit Auto Show... it felt cramped and the doors (which had no window frame) felt so light I wondered if they could stop a misguided golf ball. Foo.

As for pricing... I've seen over and over, real-world confirmation that the street prices from edmunds.com are quite accurate. So sorry to break the news... these econobox switchblades aren't all that affordable.

...Just goes to show how ignorant the auto press really is - - they truly have no clue as to what constitutes a true muscle car. Major-league power and Torque on demand (that is, without revving your car first like Vin Diesel), V8 sound, heft and graceful styling... you know, that kind of stuff.