![]() |
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Register | Home | Challenger Forum | Active Topics | Gallery | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| General Discussion This section contains general discussion about the new Dodge Challenger concept. If it does not fit into a more specific area, it probably belongs in here. (Dodge Challenger General Discussion) |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
lol... Impress the ladies he shall Ryan.
Repth... I used to have a chrysler 300 3.5L. No, it is not underpowered... its actually pretty quick, well, good passing ability is what i mean. It never felt underpowerd. Yes... you can do burnout at anytime... so long as you hold the brake down.., but yeah it will do it with ease. If you ever get an exhaust man, i would do alot of sound bit researching... you dont want it to sound like a civic or nuthin. You will be really happy with it i'm sure. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
With the direction that Chrysler/Jeep/and Dodge are going, before you know it, the 3.5 will be the largest engine offered. Now it may come with a Twin Turbo. Look at what the brain trust in Detrot plans on doing to the Jeep.
A 3.5 is a tried and true engine. Not fast, but for the most part reliable. WHat's the price difference from the SE to the R/T is you get a good price? 5K? If they are going to buy you a new car, just thank them and be happy. I am old school. Bought my first car on my own when I left the Corps, and bought all of my kids a clean, used, safe car as their first vehicle, and made them pay for their own Insurance and gas. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
It has 250hp.. not too lame..
When I bought my '72 `Cuda in 1976 with 81,000 miles it had a 210hp 340 in it.. it was no slouch.. even after putting bigger tires on it I still could blow away any and all stock GM 350ci equipped cars.. (Corvettes,Camaros, Firebirds, etc) It may not be the quickest, but it will do quite alright.. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
Originally Posted by Repth
The mustang gt's about 4 or 5 years ago were only making 260hp, and the 3.5 makes close to that if not more. So i think you will be fine seeing as how the weight difference is that much.
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
yea that would be good too, but i think he said he was only 17. That insurance payment would be obsurd
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
Man, I would have been exstatic to have a new car at 17........It was 82 and I had an rusted out 68 Barracuda with a 340 4 speed. ($500.00) That car leaked too.....the funk in the interior was BADD
__________________
09 CHALLENGER SRT ON ORDER! HEMI ORANGE, SUNROOF, MY GIG, TIRE UPGRADE! DAYTONA SOLD !!!!! See My Daytona!
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Re: 3.5 Underpowered?
I also would be extatic to get a new SE at that age,same as goody I was in a 500.00 1970 charger Rt little rusty but that car ran and fit my needs quite well for a year ir two.
The Se would have been a blessing from god.. |
||||||||||||||||||
|