Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:19 PM
 
5,075 posts, read 11,016,738 times
Reputation: 4664

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by iTsLiKeAnEgG View Post
Except the civic does a quarter in 17 seconds while the Challenger can do it in the 13's and Mustang GT's can break 12's. These are very strong numbers and was supercar territory not too long ago. We can be honest, from a performance/styling perspective the Challenger is a much better car than the Civic.
They're not as far off as you think. A 98 civic SI runs the 1/4 about the same time as the base SXT - and that's comparing a 15 year old econo-box to a brand new muscle car. I think the poster that said these challenger is an anachronism hit the nail on the head. In today's context a v8 muscle car that gets bad gas mileage and runs mid 5's 0-60 and a 14+ second quarter mile is goofy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:19 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,725,991 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
You know, what I'm really struggling with here is the idea that these are really "muscle cars" - They would have been 40 years ago, when their target buyer was probably a teenager. Now, they are for the most part cars that are meant to look or sound faster than they actually are. Which is basically the same thing the kid driving the 1998 civic with the loud exhaust and 2' wing is doing, just with less money to spend.
The top of the line 70's Challenger 440 had about 420 HP did 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds with a 13.9 second quarter mile and a top speed of about 112 MPH. 1971 Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop specifications, performance data

The top of the line SRT8 392 of today has 470 HP, does 0-60 in 4 seconds, quarter mile in 12 seconds and has a top speed of 182 MPH.

Just for fun, the R/T puts out 375 HP, does 0-60 in the mid 5 sec range, quarter mile in 13 and has a governor limited top speed of 140.

2013 Dodge Challenger R/T and SRT8 392 - Top Speed

Yep, this is definitely a poesur car that is only trying to look like a 70's muscle car but doesn't have the cahones to back it up, just like a ricer Civic.

You also get about 26 MPG highway in either the R/T or SRT vs the 70's challenger's 7 or 8 MPG.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:30 PM
 
5,075 posts, read 11,016,738 times
Reputation: 4664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
The top of the line 70's Challenger 440 had about 420 HP did 0-60 in about 5.5 seconds with a 13.9 second quarter mile and a top speed of about 112 MPH. 1971 Dodge Challenger R/T Hardtop specifications, performance data

The top of the line SRT8 392 of today has 470 HP, does 0-60 in 4 seconds, quarter mile in 12 seconds and has a top speed of 182 MPH.

Just for fun, the R/T puts out 375 HP, does 0-60 in the mid 5 sec range, quarter mile in 13 and has a governor limited top speed of 140.

2013 Dodge Challenger R/T and SRT8 392 - Top Speed

Yep, this is definitely a poesur car that is only trying to look like a 70's muscle car but doesn't have the cahones to back it up, just like a ricer Civic.
I'm not sure why you're not seeing the similarities. I still think the R/T drivers are just older ricers with more money, buying a car that looks and sounds like fast car when it's not even competitive across segments on performance. The SRT can hold it's own and is nothing to sneeze at. The R/T on the other hand is meant to evoke the feeling of the performance model, but doesn't stand out on its own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,666,338 times
Reputation: 10453
What pedantry on display in this thread. Trying to convince people who enjoy a car they don't really enjoy it while displaying one's skill at magazine test report reading.

This is like telling a person who's laughing at the Three Stooges that they aren't funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,725,991 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
I'm not sure why you're not seeing the similarities. I still think the R/T drivers are just older ricers with more money, buying a car that looks and sounds like fast car when it's not even competitive across segments on performance...
If that feeling is fast and powerful I guess...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 08:56 PM
 
5,075 posts, read 11,016,738 times
Reputation: 4664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango View Post
If that feeling is fast and powerful I guess...
Let's run and see if you still feel that way
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 09:19 PM
 
221 posts, read 333,168 times
Reputation: 345
Moral of the story...mkarch hates R/T's, compares SXT's to Civics, might like SRT's...and well, sometimes doesn't make much sense while bashing some model in the Challenger lineup.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-08-2013, 09:21 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
5,994 posts, read 19,921,773 times
Reputation: 4078
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Let's run and see if you still feel that way
Oh no! He's caught you in his trap! Only ricers want to race people over the internet
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,139 posts, read 22,725,991 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
Let's run and see if you still feel that way


OK, for those who missed it, here's whar happened:

I made my quarter mile straightaway in 0.9 seconds. My exhaust noise blew out eardrums and light bulbs as far away as Barstow and my flame trail was visible from the international space station.

When they arrived, the cops gave me thumbs up and Chrysler sent me a fat check for my efforts. I also scored with three hot Swedish babes in my back seat right afterwards and my dog got it on with three poodles.

Finally, I was crowned as the new king of Monaco, so I have to update my signature.



I'm not sure what happened to mkarch, but there was a Subaru shaped black spot on the road that may or may not have been him.

Internet forum racing rocks!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-09-2013, 08:53 AM
 
Location: NY
9,131 posts, read 19,896,257 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkarch View Post
They're not as far off as you think. A 98 civic SI runs the 1/4 about the same time as the base SXT - and that's comparing a 15 year old econo-box to a brand new muscle car. I think the poster that said these challenger is an anachronism hit the nail on the head. In today's context a v8 muscle car that gets bad gas mileage and runs mid 5's 0-60 and a 14+ second quarter mile is goofy.
In the real world, most buyers are considering far more than just the raw numbers.

If we want to bench race, sure, an aging Civic Si will look competitive.

Now, if we were to drive them back to back with the consideration of what we would be happy to live with as owner for a number of years, things change. Even comparing a new Civic (or WRX, Mazdaspeed3, or other smaller pocket rocket) to the Challenger is going to reveal to very different types of cars... different in how they steer, ride, handly, how loud or quiet they are from a road noise/wind noise standpoint, different engine tone and note, ergonomics, roominess, etc etc.

As such, they appeal to a variety of buyers.

Therefore, having a large 2 ton plus coupe with a big V8 and correspondingly lower gas mileage is not goofy. It is aimed for the person who needs, or wants the attributes which come with a larger, heavier, more expensive car.

These cars are all niche market vehicles, tailored to specific buyers who want specific things. None are any more, or less goofy than the next, and all are appropriate for the person who is satisfied with the specific traits they offered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Automotive
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top