Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,134 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Road & Track has done it again! It has compared the 2011 SRT 392 to the Shelby GT350. Naturally, the Challenger was rated #2. This is like comparing apples to oranges.

The GT350 is a limited production pony car costing $82,658 and weighing 400 lbs. less than the $44,380 Challenger.

Some comments about the Challenger:

"...still the largest of the three and can't overcome its mass when pushed hard."

"Challenger excels, not with outright performance, but sufficient output teamed with grin-inducing dynamics making for excellent smoke-belching slides, burnouts, and donuts."

"It's a refined muscle car that can cruise to Vegas at 23 mpg with a quiet cabin that let's just a little rumble tickle its passengers."

Here are the performance times:

Challenger GT350

0-60 4.6 sec. 4.2 sec
1/4 mi. 13.0 @109.8 [email protected]
Gs .90 .99


I would recommend that everyone pick up this issue of Road & Track. It also has articles about the Mustang Boss 302 Laguna Seca, the Camaro ZL-1, and spy photos of the Camaro convertible and 2012 Charger SRT 8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,658 Posts
Price dependent, the SRT8 won. (page 70)

No, but what kills me about R&T is the fact that, according to it, a BOSS 302 Laguna Seca out-accerates, out-brakes and out-handles the Shelby 350.

OK, R&T, the Shelby has 180 more bhp and better brakes, yet can't beat the BOSS 302 Laguna Seca in a straight line? Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

So, R&T can't get anything better than:
5.8 in 0-60/14.1 quarter mile for a '09 Challenger R/T 6spd;
OR
5.2 in 0-60/13.7 quarter mile for a '11 Charger R/T auto;
OR
4.6 in 0-60/13.0 quarter mile for a 6spd '11 Challenger SRT8 392 spd--(On the SAME track Dodge went 12.44 and 12.60 [Summit Raceway])

I just don't get it. Anyone have any clues? :scratchhead:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
No, but what kills me about R&T is the fact that, 4.6 in 0-60/13.0 quarter mile for a 6spd '11 Challenger SRT8 392 spd--(On the SAME track Dodge went 12.44 and 12.60 [Summit Raceway])

I just don't get it. Anyone have any clues? :scratchhead:
Magazines & media in general are about $$ not facts and surely don't have very skilled drivers unless they are being paid to drive bad.

I watched a video of a new 750hp Super Snake Mustang running 14s in the 1/4. It's all about throttle control. I went 12.89 in my 100% stock little 6.1L Challenger SRT8 so I'm sure the 6.4L SRT8 is going to be faster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
While I appreciate the press & am not a homer despite being a mopar guy
it was a stupid comparison of a stock car to a tuner car
Their rational was that the SRT used shelby colors .

Not much different than motortrend comparing the Shelby GT500
to 90K Nissan GTR & Vette Z06

Be consistent & wait for a Hennesy or Hurst version & get some freakn drivers that can run 12's in the 392 like on youtube

I'm sure Ford is a much bigger advertisers in these rags than Chrysler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
Who the hell drove that 392 to only a 13.0 @ 109??? Whoever it was needs to learn how to drive. My damn 6.1L Charger SRT8 ran a 12.9 @ 110 STOCK!!! And it was 100 pounds more heavy then the 392 Challenger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,102 Posts
This has been discussed before and a concensus was reached that the test was pretty invalid. Makes me say, " C'mon man! "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
To its credit, the SRT8 392 outbraked the GT350 (no small feat considering its tire patch and weight), and damn near tied it in the slalom (again very impressive for its size/weight).

I've been in tuner cars like the GT350 and trust me - they get old fast in daily driving and are best suited as weekend track weapons. The Challenger is a far better and more satisfying daily car for the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
To its credit, the SRT8 392 outbraked the GT350 (no small feat considering its tire patch and weight), and damn near tied it in the slalom (again very impressive for its size/weight).
Funny thing is despite beating the shelby in all braking aspects R & T's
"subjective" ratings gave the mustang a higher score :notallthere:

As for weight the challenger is obviously a bigger car in all dimensions
& personally I love a wide car with lots of shoulder room cuz well my shoulders are kinda broad yet the mustang for all it's 'sveltness' is still a 4000lb car

I dig the shelby gt500 vert but the gt350 has shelby festooned all over the car in & out to the point it's comical (styling in & out was another R&T 'subjective' win for the ford)

A better conclusion would be which would you rather own a gt350 or an IE 392 challenger plus a GT 5.0 vert or Boss 302 for nearly the same price
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,456 Posts
Yeah the subjective brake score had me laughing. Pedal feel is phenom on the SRT8, fade is non-existent, travel is almost zero (and the calipers reset after each use so they are 'right there' on the next use) - and yet R&T scores it lower subjectively.

Ditto for the seat subjective rating. Are you kidding me? The SRT8 seats are better than Mustang, Camaro, and even Corvette. Fully adjustable, supremely comfortable, great lateral and thigh support.

Styling? Another head shaker. Anyone who thinks any Mustang looks better from any angle than the IE 392 in DWB should have his head examined.

And I agree about the size of the Challenger - seriously I would not want it any smaller for my frame (6'2" and 210#). It's the perfect size car and I cannot fit comfortably in a Mustang or a Camaro - too narrow and claustrophobic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
427 Posts
I see it as a BIG complement from R&T that a factory stock Challenger SRT8 was worthy of a comparison test to a highly modified Mustang by an aftermarket company costing almost 2x.

I'm not a fan of the GT350's cheesy body kit and I like the Mustang (as a toy not a daily driver).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
I see it as a BIG complement from R&T that a factory stock Challenger SRT8 was worthy of a comparison test to a highly modified Mustang by an aftermarket company costing almost 2x.

I'm not a fan of the GT350's cheesy body kit and I like the Mustang (as a toy not a daily driver).
You are right, it is a complement to compare the SRT to the big boys. I do believe the recent Challenger makover moves the SRT8 firmly out out of the class occupied by the Camaro and Mustang GT.

Regarding daily driver comments, of course the GT350 is not a "daily driver", that goes in the 'Duh' folder. What do you guys care about, how many gallons of milk you can haul in the trunk :bigthumb:?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,935 Posts
Yeah the subjective brake score had me laughing. Pedal feel is phenom on the SRT8, fade is non-existent, travel is almost zero (and the calipers reset after each use so they are 'right there' on the next use) - and yet R&T scores it lower subjectively.

Ditto for the seat subjective rating. Are you kidding me? The SRT8 seats are better than Mustang, Camaro, and even Corvette. Fully adjustable, supremely comfortable, great lateral and thigh support.

Styling? Another head shaker. Anyone who thinks any Mustang looks better from any angle than the IE 392 in DWB should have his head examined.

And I agree about the size of the Challenger - seriously I would not want it any smaller for my frame (6'2" and 210#). It's the perfect size car and I cannot fit comfortably in a Mustang or a Camaro - too narrow and claustrophobic.
I have a ZO6 Vette....you're right re the seats!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top