[Red Barron]

We know the 392 doesn't have the highest advertised HP; however, we know with all that low end torque it will be gobbling up stock production Mustangs and Camaros left and right. Place your kills here for others to see and admire!:bigthumb:

 

[0211]

We know the 392 doesn't have the highest advertised HP; however, we know with all that low end torque it will be gobbling up stock production Mustangs and Camaros left and right. Place your kills here for others to see and admire!:bigthumb:

They all go a hiding when they see us coming!!!! :bigthumb:

 

[RammJaeger]

I actually got into a race with a brand new Mustang GT. It was one of those impromptu street races where your driving along at normal speeds and you hear someone's engine revving really loud and look over to see a car passing you. I sped up to catch up with the guy and we did a bit of weaving in and out of traffic. We never could get lined up at a spotlight until the very end. He rolls down his window and says "wow is that one of those new 392's?". And I of course say yes. Then he says "awesome car". So we roll up our windows and when the stoplight changes I REALLY nail it hard. I'm pretty happy that I'm smoking him and then I look in my rear view mirror and he turns left. So either he was embarrassed and just slowed down and turned around, or it was his turn Either way, it was a good bit of fun. I just would have liked to have a good stoplight to stoplight drag race with him where we both start off together instead of this "lets take turns flying by each other at high speeds as we weave in and out of traffic" stuff.

 

[Hurst 41]

Not sure the 392 can ace the new Mustang: 12.75 @ 111 mph is pretty stout. Stock with stock Pirelli street tires. There is a scanned slip there too. Will be interesting to see if a stock 392 can beat this and if so, by how much? The best time for a stock SRT8 6.1 is 12.9 @ 108 mph.

Stock 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0 GT Premium 1/4 mile trap speeds 0-60 - DragTimes.com

 

[Heminator]

It all depends on if the driver blows the launch. That is where the auto will have a big advantage in any street race.

I think a more telling stat is how quickly each of the three cars will accelerate from say 60-130 MPH - that takes the launch and tire spin out of the equation. Trap speed in the 1320 is also a good indicator.

A quick check of published incrementals (MT, C&D, Edmunds) for the 2011 Mustang GT, Camaro 6.2 SS, and SRT8 392 indicates that once rolling neither of those two cars will walk past a 392. Quite possibly the opposite will occur - the 392 might very well walk away from either car in a roll-on.

C/D TEST RESULTS 392 Challenger:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 114 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2011 Mustang GT 5.0:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2010 Camaro SS 6.2:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 19.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph

60-130 MPH:
Challenger 392: 11.8 seconds
Mustang 5.0: 13.4 seconds
Camaro 6.2: 15.2 seconds

 

[Hurst 41]

It all depends on if the driver blows the launch. That is where the auto will have a big advantage in any street race.

I think a more telling stat is how quickly each of the three cars will accelerate from say 60-130 MPH - that takes the launch and tire spin out of the equation. Trap speed in the 1320 is also a good indicator.

A quick check of published incrementals (MT, C&D, Edmunds) for the 2011 Mustang GT, Camaro 6.2 SS, and SRT8 392 indicates that once rolling neither of those two cars will walk past a 392. Quite possibly the opposite will occur - the 392 might very well walk away from either car in a roll-on.

C/D TEST RESULTS 392 Challenger:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.3 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 24.7 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 114 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2011 Mustang GT 5.0:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 10.5 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 18.0 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2010 Camaro SS 6.2:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 19.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph

60-130 MPH:
Challenger 392: 11.8 seconds
Mustang 5.0: 13.4 seconds
Camaro 6.2: 15.2 seconds

Those results seem to indicate that in the average "street" race, the 392 may lose as many races as it wins.

 

[dbhoosier]

Those results seem to indicate that in the average "street" race, the 392 may lose as many races as it wins.

Which is fine. Why do we continue to compare the Challenger to the Camaro and Mustang? Those are pony cars - Challenger is muscle. Seats 5, weighs a lot more, more luxurious (gentleman's muscle car), etc. The fact that the 392, with an equivalent driver, shoud beat these other cars with an equivalent number of passenger (that are actually comfortable in the 392) is a good thing (and smoke them in a 1/2 mile). Yes, the 392 costs more - for the reasons already stated - but it can hang with smaller, lighter, uglier performance rides in style. The GT500 is faster, and soon the ZL1 will be out and will also be the faster ride - I don't care. I don't want either. The 392 is perfect (to me). If Chevy ever revived the Chevelle and Ford brought back the Gran Torino, then let's compare away...

That being said, I'm always happy to hear about 392's smoking other rides...

 

[Hurst 41]

Which is fine. Why do we continue to compare the Challenger to the Camaro and Mustang? Those are pony cars - Challenger is muscle. Seats 5, weighs a lot more, more luxurious (gentleman's muscle car), etc. The fact that the 392, with an equivalent driver, shoud beat these other cars with an equivalent number of passenger (that are actually comfortable in the 392) is a good thing (and smoke them in a 1/2 mile). Yes, the 392 costs more - for the reasons already stated - but it can hang with smaller, lighter, uglier performance rides in style. The GT500 is faster, and soon the ZL1 will be out and will also be the faster ride - I don't care. I don't want either. The 392 is perfect (to me). If Chevy ever revived the Chevelle and Ford brought back the Gran Torino, then let's compare away...

That being said, I'm always happy to hear about 392's smoking other rides...

Hey, I don't even have a 392, just a lowly 5.7 R/T. I agree with most of your statements. I didn't buy my R/T to race. I bought it because it's big, roomy, looks like a million bucks, has all the right feels and sounds, and because it makes me happy. The gravy is that there aren't as many running around as Mustangs and Camaros.

I was replying to the OP's post about eating Mustangs and Camaros and that it may not be quite that black and white......

Have a great night.

 

[dbhoosier]

We're on the same page - your car rules as well. I loved my R/T right up until I got my 392 (nothing lowly about an R/T). Just having a conversation on a Saturday night - thanks for participating.

Hey, I don't even have a 392, just a lowly 5.7 R/T. I agree with most of your statements. I didn't buy my R/T to race. I bought it because it's big, roomy, looks like a million bucks, has all the right feels and sounds, and because it makes me happy. The gravy is that there aren't as many running around as Mustangs and Camaros.

I was replying to the OP's post about eating Mustangs and Camaros and that it may not be quite that black and white......

Have a great night.

 

[Hurst 41]

We're on the same page - your car rules as well. I loved my R/T right up until I got my 392 (nothing lowly about an R/T). Just having a conversation on a Saturday night - thanks for participating.

Sure thing. BTW, we are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. I had admired the Challengers since their re-introduction but it wasn't until I saw my first 392 (white w/ blue stripes) that I fell head over heals. I would love to have a 392 but the cost was prohibitive. However, it lit the fire that wouldn't go out until I made a purchase. I decided to search for the ultimate (for me) Challenger that I could rationalize purchasing. I finally stumbled upon my '10 Hurst series 1 brand new for $29,995 out the door. That sealed my fate. It was located 1100 miles away in Boston so I flew there with a free SkyMiles ticket and drove it home. White is my favorite color and the Hurst model is stunningly good looking to me, very simple and understated.

Anyways, not to stray from the original topic any longer.

Take care and enjoy your awesome ride.

 

[HemiFan]

Win or lose, in a Challenger you'll still look better than the other guy when its over.

 

[Hurst 41]

Win or lose, in a Challenger you'll still look better than the other guy when its over.

No doubt about that!!!

 

[Heminator]

Which is fine. Why do we continue to compare the Challenger to the Camaro and Mustang? Those are pony cars - Challenger is muscle. Seats 5, weighs a lot more, more luxurious (gentleman's muscle car), etc. The fact that the 392, with an equivalent driver, shoud beat these other cars with an equivalent number of passenger (that are actually comfortable in the 392) is a good thing (and smoke them in a 1/2 mile). Yes, the 392 costs more - for the reasons already stated - but it can hang with smaller, lighter, uglier performance rides in style. The GT500 is faster, and soon the ZL1 will be out and will also be the faster ride - I don't care. I don't want either. The 392 is perfect (to me). If Chevy ever revived the Chevelle and Ford brought back the Gran Torino, then let's compare away...

That being said, I'm always happy to hear about 392's smoking other rides...

While I was responding to the OP, I agree completely. I went to test drive a Camaro and got inside and my head hit the ceiling. And I'm only 6'2". I put the power seat all the way down - my head still hit the ceiling. Forget wearing a helmet (a mandate at most tracks with a 13.99 or faster car). Test drive over. The 2011 Mustang is a far better car than the Camaro but it's still way too small inside for me and the family.

I honestly believe the Challenger SRT8 should be compared to larger luxo-performance import coupes like Aston Martin, BMW, Infiniti, Jaguar, MB, etc. because it really has no direct USA competition. Road & Track just made a similar observation about the 2011 Dodge Charger having no direct USA competitors and compared it directly and favorably to the BMW 550i. Similar features, almost identical size/weight, and similar performance.

While some might dismiss this as fanboy prattling, it's not a stretch to compare the SRT8 392 to coupes like the Aston Martin DB9, Jaguar XK, BMW 6 series, Infiniti G coupe, MB CL550. Look at the overall size, curb weight, features/specs, powertrain, chassis, suspension, brakes, wheels/tires, etc. The SRT8 392 is a luxo-performance coupe in the traditional Gran Turismo sense more than anything else.

This video pretty much sums up why I chose the SRT8 392. Note the comment about the GT500 being 'terrifying' on the same exact stretch of road (likely due to the ultra stiff suspension and live rear axle). The SRT8 392 is an American luxo-performance coupe designed for spirited driving in real world conditions and is not a smallish hard-core track weapon which will fatigue/scare the driver on real roads.

 

[HemiFan]

Love that video - good all around description IMO. Comparing a Dodge to those luxo-Euro go fasts will probably get some folks chatting (owners of those things mostly I'd think). But, I think there's a good case for comparison as described in the post. The Challenger is all that, even if it is a Dodge. Interesting point comparison by Road & Track too...sometimes a car comes along that just hits it out of the park. The Challenger is one of those IMO, far more so than its Ford and GM "rivals."

 

[hemifever]

Which is fine. Why do we continue to compare the Challenger to the Camaro and Mustang? Those are pony cars - Challenger is muscle. Seats 5, weighs a lot more, more luxurious (gentleman's muscle car), etc. The fact that the 392, with an equivalent driver, shoud beat these other cars with an equivalent number of passenger (that are actually comfortable in the 392) is a good thing (and smoke them in a 1/2 mile). Yes, the 392 costs more - for the reasons already stated - but it can hang with smaller, lighter, uglier performance rides in style. The GT500 is faster, and soon the ZL1 will be out and will also be the faster ride - I don't care. I don't want either. The 392 is perfect (to me). If Chevy ever revived the Chevelle and Ford brought back the Gran Torino, then let's compare away...

That being said, I'm always happy to hear about 392's smoking other rides...

Indeed. I don't care reading the comparison posts, I always wonder this exact thing with the comparison post is more of a disappointment type of post. The cars are in two classes. Kinda like in the late 80's when the supra turbo was being compared in the corvette group due to its speed. The 5 seat and huge trunk room with accompanied weight is no comparison to the performance of a 4 seated pony car with 75% hp rating let alone the matching hp rating ones. I comfortably take my family of four for a week to the beach in the challenger, packed up and all, but got back seat complaints from my kids as I took my family of 4 up to Red Robin for a burger in my father-n-laws 2010 SS Camaro.

 

[HellRaiser]

Guys, correct me if I wrong, but the driver above noted a GT500 but when I looked at his videos, he was testing a Super Snake at 750 hp. Those things run at $80k so put another $30k in the 392 and you will bust that mustang for sure.

 

[Cobra4me]

good comparisons in this thread. I havent even seen a 392 in this area yet. I would love to see how my 11' GT (383hp, 397tq stock) would fare.:thumbsup:

 

[RammJaeger]

good comparisons in this thread. I havent even seen a 392 in this area yet. I would love to see how my 11' GT (383hp, 397tq stock) would fare.:thumbsup:

Take a road trip down to Atlanta and I'll be happy to show you how you'd fare

 

[JAMAYA]

So what is the true RWHP on these new 11's? I hear they are a tad under rated, which is awesome if they are, but has anyone dynoed it? or a tune? or too early still? I did recently see a 2011 and a new 5.0 playing around and the 392 was yanking him off the line, but after maybe getting into 3rd the 392 was only about a little less then a car length ahead, but they had 4 clean stop lights with nobody in front of them and it was the same result all 4 times, which leaves me to believe the 392's are slightly under rated in power? because those new 5.0's are fast and light. The 392's are still on the heavy end.

 

[RammJaeger]

Am I missing something, or is everyone missing the fact that according to C/D (which someone posted earlier) the 392 is faster 0-60, 1/4 Mile, and 60-130 when compared with the Mustang GT and Camaro SS?

C/D TEST RESULTS 392 Challenger:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.5 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 12.9 sec @ 114 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2011 Mustang GT 5.0:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.0 sec @ 111 mph

C/D TEST RESULTS 2010 Camaro SS 6.2:
Zero to 60 mph: 4.6 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.2 sec @ 109 mph

I'd say thats not bad

60-130 MPH:
Challenger 392: 11.8 seconds
Mustang 5.0: 13.4 seconds
Camaro 6.2: 15.2 seconds