Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Test drove a Titanium Metallic 2011 SE today. The only option was the RES radio. Sticker was $25,600.

I have a 2010 DWB Rallye SE/G with sunroof, heated leather seats, and the RES radio. My sticker was $28,900. Paid $25,100.

Standard features I liked on the 2011:

Modified EVIC - Personal settings, miles to empty, etc. Doesn't have the performance readouts like on the SRT, but still is nice to have.
Dual Exhaust - I left the radio off, so I could listen for the exhaust sound. Not that much different than my 2010. Heard more engine noise than exhaust noise. I have a CAI, so the engine sound on my 2010 was deeper than the 2011.
Heater-A/C controls - Like the Auto feature and actual temp settings on dial.
Gauges - liked the new style.
Audio/EVIC controls on steering wheel - like having the controls (am planning on adding them to mine 2010), but not sure about incorporating the cruise in with the audio controls. I've gotten used to the toggle cruise controls on the 2010.

Features I'm not sold on:

Smaller steering wheel - I Like the bigger on one the 2010.
New door handles - easier to open, but I like the flush door handles on my 2010.

Performance comparison - I reset the throttle response (using the ignition on but the engine not started, and slowly pressing and releasing the gas pedal trick) before going for the test drive, so I could get the most out of the 2011. Either my 2010 is quicker than normal, or I'm a poor judge in performance because I could hardly tell any difference between my 2010 and the 2011. With 55 more horses, I thought I'd notice the difference. Maybe it was because I have 12K miles on mine and its broken in and teh 2011 wasn't.

I should note that I recently test drove a 2010 R/T. I really couldn't tell a huge difference between the R/T and my SE. I know it has more torque and horsepower, but adding 50% more horses and torque, doesn't equate to a 50% increase in performance. At best, you're picking up about 1 to 1.25 seconds in 0-60 time. They were asking $33,900 for the R/T (It only had 2300 miles on it. It was a repo) But it didn't have EVIC or a sunroof, so I really wasn't considering trading up. Just wanted to drive one to compare.

To me, all of the Challengers are the best looking cars on the road today, with good to great performance. I'm glad we have three trim/engine options so we can all satisfy our personal need for speed. I outgrew the racing bug when I traded in my 73 Cuda. Should have kept that car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
"I really couldn't tell a huge difference between the R/T and my SE."

Thats because neither car was tested at its peak performance level where there IS a huge difference. There is a also bigger difference in perfromance gap between the SE and R/T than the R/T and the SRT.


Glad your happy with the SE but dont try and tell anyone that its "just as good" as an R/T because thats just silly. :werd:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,272 Posts
"I really couldn't tell a huge difference between the R/T and my SE."

Thats because neither car was tested at its peak performance level where there IS a huge difference. There is a also bigger difference in perfromance gap between the SE and R/T than the R/T and the SRT.


Glad your happy with the SE but dont try and tell anyone that its "just as good" as an R/T because thats just silly. :werd:
I don't see where he did.
Glad you're happy with the R/T but don't try and tell anyone it's "better" because that's just silly :werd:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,364 Posts
Question: What did you think of the handling? I heard a lot about how they changed the handling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Detour,

I'm not saying it's "just as good". I'm saying I didn't notice enough of an increase in performance to warrant spending $10,000 more for a R/T or $20,000 more for a SRT.

I have the income level to afford either a R/T or a SRT, but since I never plan on racing, either in the street, or at the track, why spend the extra $$$. My SE looks great, handles great and when I need to accelerate, it goes.

As I said, I had a 73 Cuda (340/4 barrel). I raced it a few times. It would out-preform my SE, and I should have kept it. That was in the mid-70's and I was a hard-charging Marine. But as a lowly CPL, I couldn't afford the new exhaust system and brake system replacements it needed. I loved the Cuda, but I'd take the SE for mileage (17 mpg vs 27 mpg on the highway), creature comforts (A/C, cruise, power everything, heated leather, Sirrus radio), and better handling. Plus, I get more comments on the Challenger than I ever got with the Cuda.

I am saying that the SE, R/T and SRT all look great. Sure, I'd like to have the EVIC and dual exhaust (which I can always add). But I'm more than happy with my SE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
MoparOhio,

I only drove it 3-4 miles on city roads, so I couldn't really get a feel if it handled any better.

I should also note that my salesman felt that the 2010 SE was quicker off the line, but the 2011 SE had more power at higher speeds. But then, he wasn't aware of the trick to reset the throttle response so maybe he had been driving cars which had adapted to rather tame driving habits. Afterall, most people going for a test drive don't "floor it".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
My buddy showed up with a brandnew 2011 RT six speed today....

Definately got more beans than my 2010 SE!

I test drove a 2011 SE..and couldn't see much improvement over my 2010 SE either. Take-off and acceleration up to speed seemed the same....I didn't take it up too much over the speed limit..or run it up against the governor to see where the 2011 falls on it's a$$ though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,970 Posts
Seat of the pants impressions are quite subjective. Here are the 0-60 results from Motor Trend:

2009 SE: 7.3
2011 SE: 6.4
2009 RT: 5.1
2009 SRT: 4.6

Different sources will have different times but the gaps between the models is fairly consistent across the sources, with Edmunds posting slower times across the models. Note the Pentastar is just under a second quicker to 60, you can do the math vs the 5.7 and 6.1.

I suspect what you are noticing is the 3.5 has plenty of power to get you comfortably where you want to go.

2009 Dodge Challenger SE, R/T, SRT8 Testing - Features - Motor Trend
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Thats because neither car was tested at its peak performance level where there IS a huge difference.
Really :notallthere:the guy went for a test drive not a road race. The whole topic is about a test drive not a SCCA wheel to wheel open. During his DRIVE on a public road, there was no huge difference. It is called frame of reference. Your ride's red brake calipers, hemi stickers and the ability to spin the tires is USELESS 99.9999% of the time during a drive down public roads.

There is a also bigger difference in perfromance gap between the SE and R/T than the R/T and the SRT.
What type of performance are you talking about.:scratchhead: If you are talking about the ability to travel safely and in style down the road, that you are clearly mistaken. Let me check the tread topic again... hmm there it is 2011SE test drive, yep kinda of sure that does not mean wheel to wheel racing at Sebring. But for grins, lets look at performance:

MPG
SE 21
R/T 19
R/T manual 18
SRT 15
SRT manual16
So the R/T auto is actually closer to the SE. Clearly the SE is superior in MPG performance on public roads, and the R/T is close behind. All data from fueleconomy.gov

Braking:
SE Road and track 118 ft ( the only road test out)
R/T Motor Trend and Car and Driver 60-0 135 ft
SRT 392 Road and Track 392 117 ft

2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T vs 2010 Ford Mustang GT - Specs and Road Test Data - Motor Trend

2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS vs 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T vs 2010 Ford Mustang GT - Specs and Road Test Data - Motor Trend

2011 Chevrolet Camaro vs 2011 Dodge Challenger vs 2011 Ford Mustang vs 2011 Hyundai Genesis - Specs - Motor Trend

The SE is better at braking vs the R/T, and it is the SE that is very close to the SRT. The R/T at least for the 2010 R/T which he listed as his comparison car:
AT10 wrote
I recently test drove a 2010 R/T
thank you AT10 for the specific factual write up.

OK, OK, handling, the all important road grip stock:
SE .85
R/T .82
SRT .90

Once again the SE has superior cornering vs the 2010 R/T, and it is the SE that is closer to the SRT. I may add since the SE is by far the lightest chassis of the group, mod for mod it will out handle any other Challenger.

The 0-60 performance
SE 6.4
R/T 5.1 to 5.9
SRT 4.6

So really it is a near wash, but at least admitedly most people should be able to get a low 5 out of the R/T. So I would, being a fair minded guy say in general the R/T is closer to the SRT. Not that any of this could be found on a test drive. Don't forget if traction control was not turned off the above hemi times could be much slower and you have to turn the controls off before you need the power, like only ESP will allow you to actually have the burn out, banzai, karate chop ready for action in the average throw down. I don't see a huge advantage to having so much extra power if to use that power I gotta turn off the traction control before I need it or want it, and IMO only a fool would drive a 370 to 470 HP, 4500 lbs car with the traction control always off. But that is a minor quibble, till it's not.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/var/ezflow_site/storage_RT_NEW/storage/original/application/539ee865599422b3cf9f2acf1fa4bf8b.pdf


2009 Dodge Challenger R/T Full Test on Inside Line

and lets just look at HP
SE 305 HP
R/T 376 HP
SRT 470 HP
hmm, 71 HP gap and a 94 HP gap, looks like the S/E is closer to the R/T, the real question would be how often can one use more than 305 HP?

speed at the end of the 1/4 mile?
SE 95
R/T 101- 106
SRT 110
Once again the "gap" distance is a near wash, not provable on a test drive in any event.


Glad your happy with the SE but dont try and tell anyone that its "just as good" as an R/T because thats just silly. :werd:
The only thing that is "silly" is people that want to yank out of contex subjective opinions. I'm sure the oldlady, as well as the vast majority of the general public, test driving both cars, would come to the same conclusion. The 2011 SE is just as good if not better at 99.99% of what Joe and Jane average want out of a car vs a 2010 R/T. Simple enough.


But in fairness, if this was a post about 2011 SE drag racing, and if he took said SE to a drag strip, and if he made a comment about not much performance difference, then I concede you would have a point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
You guys are funny, I enjoy reading these tidbits.

Since I am a lurker and not really an owner of a Challenger and it is the SE that I am most interested in, what is the best mileage one can expect on the road from a light-footed driver? (When I read Edmund's and it said the Challenger would make a good Grand Touring car, that caught my attention and interest)

All that said, if the rumors of a twin turboed/420hp/v6 with 8speed automatic are actually correct for 2012, I find that very intriging. (the current SRT not so)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
there is real world, and there is EPA, both the 2010 SE and the auto hemi (not sure about the manual for 2011) will get about 25 to 27 MPG highway, so +1 to +2 for the 2011 SE should yeild a 26 to 29 highway MPG. In the city with a reasonable traffic, my 2009 pulls in 21 MPG, the new 2011 SE should do say 22 MPG the hemi will get a few less than at 19 -20.

Now Ford has the eco boost, and looking at the HP and torque, that engine could replace all engines at Ford from the new 5.0 to the new 6.1. IMO the handwriting is on the wall, a V6 twin turbo will power ALL performance cars in a few years (like lets keep it real and say under 100K "cars"), they offer better MPG, better torque, and for the most part better HP, clearly better overall HP. In truth the reliability is a wash, but I for one just like the idea of a cam in the block, lower RPM V8. As I feel it is just a better way to design a inexpensive, easy to work with and on platform, I'm old hint. But really, when was the last time I had to pull an engine??? The Skyline GT-R is already at 500 HP for 2012. It was not that long ago the 2.6 liter Skyline GT-R (2002) had the wow eyes bug out 320 HP. Heck grandma's BMW inline 6 offers that now days. With the CAFE standards, the price point of the lower HP V8, with lower torque, with lower overall torque will actually be higher than a twin turbo V6. I'm sure at some point there will be a twin turbo V6 vs 6.4 SRT. As the twin turbo V6 gets cheaper to make and support it will replace the R/T's hemi. There maybe even a high fuel economy 2.7 twin turbo at say 350 HP, and a limited production SRT 4.0 at say 500 HP. It is very cheap only having one engine and change the bore / stroke and boost levels.

The marketing guys will ask what is better than a hemi? Easy "turbo hemi" or "twin turbo hemi" the TTH trim, not the same ring as 340 six pak, but:
Twin
Turbo
Hemi
does have a nice ring all the same..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
With real gasoline thats not watered down with ethanol I can get 20-22mpg put-putting around town. Get out on the highway for a long drive can get from 25-29 mpg.

Since we have like three or four gas stations localy that offer ethanol free gasoline..that's what I burn...but on the longer trips I just buy whatever brand/grade fuel is coming from the pump..Probably why my highway mileage varys so much. Ethanol stinks for fuel economy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Yep and the new SE is E85 too, the company car is sub 20 mpg highway on E85 and feels like there is an anchor tied to the bumper.

I would point out my last turbo 6 speed car, with chip tune and bolt ons kind of like ethanol from a performance perspective, but in the last two years I'm sure they have watered down (pun intended) the overall octane gain from ethanol.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Yep that is a 30% plunge in MPG for a 85% use of ethanol, and since we all know ethanol is a zero sum game, and even Gore has back away from corn base ethanol, it would be better off just paying the farmers to drink it or dump it into the fields or both.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,364 Posts
You guys are funny, I enjoy reading these tidbits.

Since I am a lurker and not really an owner of a Challenger and it is the SE that I am most interested in, what is the best mileage one can expect on the road from a light-footed driver? (When I read Edmund's and it said the Challenger would make a good Grand Touring car, that caught my attention and interest)

All that said, if the rumors of a twin turboed/420hp/v6 with 8speed automatic are actually correct for 2012, I find that very intriging. (the current SRT not so)
I have 24k on my Challenger SE. If you don't floor it and drive it normally and at posted speed limits... For 20% city and 80% freeway I typically get about 24MPG. The worst I have gotten is 20 MPG and the best was 100% freeway was 28.9.

Also of note... My SE is a 2009 with the 4 speed transmission. Very late in the 2009 MY they started using the 5 speed transmission.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,272 Posts
Seat of the pants impressions are quite subjective. Here are the 0-60 results from Motor Trend:

2009 SE: 7.3
2011 SE: 6.4
2009 RT: 5.1
2009 SRT: 4.6

I suspect what you are noticing is the 3.5 has plenty of power to get you comfortably where you want to go.
And I think 90+% of SE owners are happy with that. SE looks as bad A as any other challenger, drives very well...if not bad A, and costs thousands less than the HEMI.

Some, I repeat some, again for the reading impaired some HEMI owners just don't get that we can be very happy with our cars and gotta come into a thread and tell us glad you're happy with you're little SE but just remember your place type of comment

You guys are funny, I enjoy reading these tidbits.

Since I am a lurker and not really an owner of a Challenger and it is the SE that I am most interested in, what is the best mileage one can expect on the road from a light-footed driver? (When I read Edmund's and it said the Challenger would make a good Grand Touring car, that caught my attention and interest)

All that said, if the rumors of a twin turboed/420hp/v6 with 8speed automatic are actually correct for 2012, I find that very intriging. (the current SRT not so)
MPG = many factors as you know.
I run Shell 89 and average about 22-23 with mostly hgwy driving.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
bilesteve,

The best I have gotten on the highway is 27.8 mpg. That was in the fall before the gas stations switched to the winter blend (you get about 10% less mileage with the winter blend). In the fall, I averaged about 22 mpg combined city/highway. I don't hotrod (too much), but I also don't drive like a granny.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
MPG
SE 21
R/T 19
R/T manual 18
SRT 15
SRT manual16
So the R/T auto is actually closer to the SE. Clearly the SE is superior in MPG performance on public roads, and the R/T is close behind. All data from fueleconomy.gov
WOW, you showed me OldFart, I guess. :scratchhead:

The SE is CLEARLY the winner in mpg (as if any Challenger owner really gives a RATSASSS about that).

The next time I care about mpg in a MUSCLE car will be the first time. :sleep:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
WOW, you showed me OldFart, I guess. :scratchhead:
gee you only made two statements and be so completely WRONG again on both gotta hurt deep down. Of course you don't care as you being WRONG is your norm. :fight:

The SE is CLEARLY the winner in mpg (as if any Challenger owner really gives a RATSASSS about that)
and you forgot about handling and stopping,:browsmiley:

HP between models, and even the 0-60 change between models was really a wash.

The next time I care about mpg in a MUSCLE car will be the first time. :sleep:
Got news for you check the forum, not many here got an SE cause it was a "muscle car".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,569 Posts
Well I care about MPGs. If the SE got the same mileage as the SRT, I would not be buying one.
Right you are sir! You said it! It adds up.

Lets look at real world, 2011 SE 22 MPG cheap stuff, R/T auto 19 MPG premium cause it has a tune, filter, cat back, SRT 16 MPG premium. 15K miles a year cost is
SE $2386
R/T $2960
SRT $3515
Say you keep the ride 10 years:
Cost difference
SE baseline: $0.00
R/T $5,740
SRT $11,290

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170619314944&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWAX%3AIT

So on fuel alone I could roll a nice driver 1971 340 Dart 4 speed, 3.91 posi A/C ralley rims. So yep I guess I do care. Heck say the oldlady makes the same choice, that would be two cars:
SE $0.00
R/T $11,480
SRT $22,580
Now I could get a 1973 semi-pro restored EBody, 360, A/C, 727 auto 3.23s, Magnum roller cam 252 duration, 340 1969 exhaust manifold remakes, 6 pak, all show 9.0 CR close chamber heads cheap stuff for fuel. Now I REALLY CARE.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top