Riptide

At 3500 pounds the GT isn't exactly a lightweight either. The R/T doesn't weigh much more and it has another 75 crank hp. It's a close race between the two.

acascianelli

I thought the R/T's were still close to 4000lbs. Either way, it still has a slightly better hp/weight ratio than a GT.

OhioState87

Here are the weight specs for the 2009 models of both:

2009 Mustang GT
Curb Weight MT 3356
Curb Weight AT 3540

2009 Challenger R/T
Curb Weight MT N/A
Curb Weight AT 4140

acascianelli

A manual GT does not weight 3356, they're closer to 3450-3500. That looks like the weight of a V6.

OhioState87

I'm just relaying the info from here: http://autos.yahoo.com/2009_ford_mus...m_coupe-specs/

Those are the specs listed for a 2009 Mustang GT Premium coupe

Riptide

Right on both counts. I thought it was closer to 3800 pounds but it's not.

kbb.com lists curb weight for a 2010 premium GT at 3483lbs.

1morepart

i like the look, but i would rather have it's motor in my gt.....

kodos78

The real problem for the Challenger is the Camaro. For $30k Chevy has a 422hp car that will probably outperform and outhandle a $42k SRT8.

Not good for the Challenger.

And I don't even know how Ford can justify a $50k Mustang Cobra. It looks sweet and all, but I'd pocket the $20k and go with the Camaro SS. Ford needs something to compete with the Camaro, let's hope the 5.0L V8 does the trick.

Riptide

/agree

The cobra is overpriced. I looked on autotrader yesterday and most people still want 40K plus even for lightly used ones.

99RedStang

I disagree. I sat in an R/T and I thought the shifter felt really good, as well as the clutch.


Although I agree, the Camaro is the bargain, your facts are a little slanted. For closer to $31k, you get the zero-optioned, 400hp auto version of the SS.