CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
07-25-2008, 12:12 PM
#41
1st Gear Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 76
RE: CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here ya go!
98 corvette 19k miles- $18,500
NEW PRICE $17,900 .Super clean inside and out,low miles, black on black,automatic,have hardtop and glass top,12cd changer,power memory sport seats with no wear marks,dual climate control,cold ac,only mods are borla catback and zo6 red calipers,needs nothing,everything works,clean carfax, never in an accident,baby on the way forces sale.please pm me with an email address for pics.thanks for looking.serious only please.
[sarcasm]Then you can hang w/ the Vette crowd, the nicest, most down-to-earth, un-pretentious group of folks you'd ever want to meet[/sarcasm]
98 corvette 19k miles- $18,500
NEW PRICE $17,900 .Super clean inside and out,low miles, black on black,automatic,have hardtop and glass top,12cd changer,power memory sport seats with no wear marks,dual climate control,cold ac,only mods are borla catback and zo6 red calipers,needs nothing,everything works,clean carfax, never in an accident,baby on the way forces sale.please pm me with an email address for pics.thanks for looking.serious only please.
[sarcasm]Then you can hang w/ the Vette crowd, the nicest, most down-to-earth, un-pretentious group of folks you'd ever want to meet[/sarcasm]
07-25-2008, 01:08 PM
#43
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 556
RE: CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: will_c
I have heard the SRT8s have had problems with throwing rods through the engine blocks... not a super common problem, but a super huge one if you do encounter it.
i'm not claimingthat as 100% true, but I do know it has happened on a several Charger SRT8s
ORIGINAL: lieu910
It was confirmed last week that the Camaro will in fact arrive in 2010.
Regardingthe deragotory statement about the Challenger being a Chrysler. Inall fairness to the OP, if he is considering a Challenger,he should know that allthe LX cars have been very reliable and well built cars. The SRT8's have been around a while and have proven to be relatively trouble free. The only issues being a coolant overflow and excessive brake dust from the Brembo's. Both are addressed in TSB's.
I would reccomend to the OP that he inquire on the SRT8 boards and get it straight from those guys, and not just me. My SRT8 has been great, one of the best cars I've owned.We have owned three Chrysler products over the last 5 years. All have been very good cars, and no troubles to report.
I just don't see much disparity in car quality like I used to in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. Nicer interior quality here or there, but in terms of reliability and build quality, it's a pretty level playing field.
ORIGINAL: ddiehl
First of all, the Challenger looks good but ...... it's a Chysler. I'll leave it there. Are you sure the Camaro "will in fact" hit the street in 2010, or at all. GM has been dangling that teaser for quite a while now and we still have not seen it. Now that gas prices are where they are, will they reconsider continuing with it's planned production. I don't know the answers but you may wait and never see it.
First of all, the Challenger looks good but ...... it's a Chysler. I'll leave it there. Are you sure the Camaro "will in fact" hit the street in 2010, or at all. GM has been dangling that teaser for quite a while now and we still have not seen it. Now that gas prices are where they are, will they reconsider continuing with it's planned production. I don't know the answers but you may wait and never see it.
Regardingthe deragotory statement about the Challenger being a Chrysler. Inall fairness to the OP, if he is considering a Challenger,he should know that allthe LX cars have been very reliable and well built cars. The SRT8's have been around a while and have proven to be relatively trouble free. The only issues being a coolant overflow and excessive brake dust from the Brembo's. Both are addressed in TSB's.
I would reccomend to the OP that he inquire on the SRT8 boards and get it straight from those guys, and not just me. My SRT8 has been great, one of the best cars I've owned.We have owned three Chrysler products over the last 5 years. All have been very good cars, and no troubles to report.
I just don't see much disparity in car quality like I used to in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. Nicer interior quality here or there, but in terms of reliability and build quality, it's a pretty level playing field.
i'm not claimingthat as 100% true, but I do know it has happened on a several Charger SRT8s
I have not seen any engine failure otherwise mentioned on any of theboards.
07-25-2008, 07:04 PM
#45
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8
RE: CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: lieu910
Right because the Camaro SS is whopping 130lbs lighter than the Challenger. The 2010 SS weighs 3900+ the Challenger weighs 4,031.
On topic.You really can't go wrong with any of the choices you listed. However, let me address your concern about the GT's lower horsepower and how it actually translates when comparing these cars.
I have owned an LS2 GTO. With longtube headers and a tune the car ran a best of 13.23. My GT when brand new and stock ran 13.68. The LS2 GTO is faster stock to stock; however, it is an easy disparity to overcome. If you wantperformance on par or better than an LS2 GTO, simply budget a little extra money for the following.
4.10 gears / CAI / Tune
As an ex GTO owner, I can tell you there is little if any consolation in owning a car that comes stock with an extra 100hp, but is notably heavier, and much less appealing to look at than a GT. The extra100 hp means even less when you runup against your first mildly modified GT and cannot get by him.It's at that verypointI realized that I wanted a GT.
So to sum it up,don't focus too much on stock HP. Pay attention to what these cars run at the track, the curb weight etc. You'll see a stock GTcan beeasily and cheapily modified to beat a GTO.
ORIGINAL: CapitalG
Challenger sucks, get a Camaro 2010 before you get that overweight junk.
Challenger sucks, get a Camaro 2010 before you get that overweight junk.
On topic.You really can't go wrong with any of the choices you listed. However, let me address your concern about the GT's lower horsepower and how it actually translates when comparing these cars.
I have owned an LS2 GTO. With longtube headers and a tune the car ran a best of 13.23. My GT when brand new and stock ran 13.68. The LS2 GTO is faster stock to stock; however, it is an easy disparity to overcome. If you wantperformance on par or better than an LS2 GTO, simply budget a little extra money for the following.
4.10 gears / CAI / Tune
As an ex GTO owner, I can tell you there is little if any consolation in owning a car that comes stock with an extra 100hp, but is notably heavier, and much less appealing to look at than a GT. The extra100 hp means even less when you runup against your first mildly modified GT and cannot get by him.It's at that verypointI realized that I wanted a GT.
So to sum it up,don't focus too much on stock HP. Pay attention to what these cars run at the track, the curb weight etc. You'll see a stock GTcan beeasily and cheapily modified to beat a GTO.
07-25-2008, 07:12 PM
#46
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 864
RE: CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stock vs. Stock the current Mustang GT has comparable acceleration and gets almost DOUBLE the fuel economy. The Challenger has an open differential and the O.D. ratio is really short compared to the Mustang so Chrysler had to use a 3.06 final drive ratio and the mileage still sucks.
Also, at 4150 lbs it's just way to heavy. Due to inefficiencies of their old style pushrod engine they had to make it big to get decent power from it.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing the Challenger has going for it is IRS. Overall the Mustang does less with more. It's a lighter, more technically advanced car than the Challenger and has great mod potential.
Also, at 4150 lbs it's just way to heavy. Due to inefficiencies of their old style pushrod engine they had to make it big to get decent power from it.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing the Challenger has going for it is IRS. Overall the Mustang does less with more. It's a lighter, more technically advanced car than the Challenger and has great mod potential.
07-25-2008, 07:59 PM
#47
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 556
RE: CONVINCE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ORIGINAL: 281GT
Stock vs. Stock the current Mustang GT has comparable acceleration and gets almost DOUBLE the fuel economy. The Challenger has an open differential and the O.D. ratio is really short compared to the Mustang so Chrysler had to use a 3.06 final drive ratio and the mileage still sucks.
Also, at 4150 lbs it's just way to heavy. Due to inefficiencies of their old style pushrod engine they had to make it big to get decent power from it.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing the Challenger has going for it is IRS. Overall the Mustang does less with more. It's a lighter, more technically advanced car than the Challenger and has great mod potential.
Stock vs. Stock the current Mustang GT has comparable acceleration and gets almost DOUBLE the fuel economy. The Challenger has an open differential and the O.D. ratio is really short compared to the Mustang so Chrysler had to use a 3.06 final drive ratio and the mileage still sucks.
Also, at 4150 lbs it's just way to heavy. Due to inefficiencies of their old style pushrod engine they had to make it big to get decent power from it.
In my opinion, the ONLY thing the Challenger has going for it is IRS. Overall the Mustang does less with more. It's a lighter, more technically advanced car than the Challenger and has great mod potential.
Starting with your statement regarding the Challenger's OD. Not entirely true as the computer uses BLSD to provide a quasi posi traction effect. Moreover, the two cars are not comperable in acceleration. The Challenger SRT8 is faster than a GT.
Secondly,if he were to want a Challenger, he probably would have to order an 09, in which case the 6-speed manual 3.92 LSD rear is an option.
Third, the disparity in mileage is not that big between the Mustang and SRT8.18-19 mixed cty/hwy for my GT when stock 16/17 mixed cty/hwymy SRT8. Edge to the GT, and with $4.00/gal gas a worthy consideration, but nowhere remotely near twice the mileage of an SRT8. About 10-15% better fuel economy is a close estimate.
Lastly, where did you get the idea thatChrysler had to make their engine 6.1to compensate for it's inefficiency?Our 3V is 300 / 4.6 = 65.2hp/liter.....6.1 hemi is 425/6.1 = 69.6 hp/liter. That math makes the hemi slightly more efficient.
The OP will make his own decison, but I'd hade to have him walk away with less than accurate information.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
LivingInThePast
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
2
09-16-2015 12:20 PM
dochawk
Classic Mustang General Discussion
7
08-25-2015 08:25 AM