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.
0.6 seconds is a huge difference in 0-60 times. This is a difference you can definitely feel. If you look at a car that does it in 4 seconds and one that does it in 4.6 (with weight and driving skill being equal) you are likely looking at a difference of a 100+ horsepower. I'm not knocking the Challenger as it is still at the end of the day in SRT trim a powerful car with a fairly particular buyer. This is a person who likes the way the car looks and is willing to pay a premium over the Mustang GT knowing that the Mustang will be a faster car both in the curves and in a straight line. The Challenger and Mustang are not an apples to apples comparison.
However I am talking about driving on the street and you are talking about a track under controlled conditions. Weight and driving skills are not going to be equal, nor will road conditions, weather, potholes, traffic lights, speed traps, tire condition, whether you are tired or fully alert, age, deer. . . . That is why you are never ever going to see the difference between a 4.0 and a 4.6 car. (Or in this case 4.4 and 4.8, depending on which report you use). There is not enough difference to matter. Bring me anyone with a stock Boss 302 and I will bet lunch they cannot go out on a street and achieve a 0-60 below 5 seconds. Line up and SRT8 a ZL1 and a Boss 302 at a light. A different one will likely win each time. One driver will blink, one may be fat, one may be cautious. Their performance is too close to make a difference. The bigger difference will be how the driver feels, when they last ate, how well they slept, how experienced they are, their age, eyesight, reaction time, courage (or possibly stupidity). The cars just are not going to make a difference when they are that close. Not on a street and certainly not in day to day driving.
The one you should choose is the one that makes you grin the biggest when you walk out to the driveway, step in and drive off.
However I am talking about driving on the street and you are talking about a track under controlled conditions. Weight and driving skills are not going to be equal, nor will road conditions, weather, potholes, traffic lights, speed traps, tire condition, whether you are tired or fully alert, age, deer. . . . That is why you are never ever going to see the difference between a 4.0 and a 4.6 car. (Or in this case 4.4 and 4.8, depending on which report you use). There is not enough difference to matter. Bring me anyone with a stock Boss 302 and I will bet lunch they cannot go out on a street and achieve a 0-60 below 5 seconds. Line up and SRT8 a ZL1 and a Boss 302 at a light. A different one will likely win each time. One driver will blink, one may be fat, one may be cautious. Their performance is too close to make a difference. The bigger difference will be how the driver feels, when they last ate, how well they slept, how experienced they are, their age, eyesight, reaction time, courage (or possibly stupidity). The cars just are not going to make a difference when they are that close. Not on a street and certainly not in day to day driving.
The one you should choose is the one that makes you grin the biggest when you walk out to the driveway, step in and drive off.
But if I am test driving three different cars my weight will be the same, the road conditions will be similar and although a car that is capable of 4s 0-60 times will not do it in 4s every time based on various road conditions, the most important difference (to me at least) between a car that can do it in 4s versus 4.4 isn't the .4s difference but the sensation of accelerating at such a pace. These are tangible differences. Most importantly of all though is what you are expecting from a car. If you are happy with five second 0-60 times and the associated sensation of acceleration/speed then you have nothing to worry about. In the same way that a V6 Camry driver is happy with 0-60 times in the 6's and 7's and may even feel that they are driving a very powerful car.
But if I am test driving three different cars my weight will be the same, the road conditions will be similar and although a car that is capable of 4s 0-60 times will not do it in 4s every time based on various road conditions, the most important difference (to me at least) between a car that can do it in 4s versus 4.4 isn't the .4s difference but the sensation of accelerating at such a pace. These are tangible differences. Most importantly of all though is what you are expecting from a car. If you are happy with five second 0-60 times and the associated sensation of acceleration/speed then you have nothing to worry about. In the same way that a V6 Camry driver is happy with 0-60 times in the 6's and 7's and may even feel that they are driving a very powerful car.
Back to the STI ... it gets 305 HP, the same as a V6 Challenger. Which car is "more powerful?"
Acceleration is not the only thing a car does! Power is just as much a perception or feeling while driving as it is numbers on a car comparison website, and unless you are trying to win actual races the difference is moot.
Nobody behind the wheel of a Challenger has to worry about ball shrinkage... except for me, because my other car is a bright blue Nissan Versa. Hopefully the two extremes will balance me out over time.
And back to the OP.... Buy a Challenger. It's a freaking-awesomemobile that will make you feel like a pagan god!
Back to the STI ... it gets 305 HP, the same as a V6 Challenger. Which car is "more powerful?"
Acceleration is not the only thing a car does! Power is just as much a perception or feeling while driving as it is numbers on a car comparison website, and unless you are trying to win actual races the difference is moot.
Nobody behind the wheel of a Challenger has to worry about ball shrinkage... except for me, because my other car is a bright blue Nissan Versa. Hopefully the two extremes will balance me out over time.
And back to the OP.... Buy a Challenger. It's a freaking-awesomemobile that will make you feel like a pagan god!
The STi gains a large traction advantage due to its excellent AWD system although the Challenger is still heavier. From a dig the STi will feel worlds apart although from a roll the STi will likely walk away at a decent pace rather than absolutely destroy the Challenger. On the other hand (and back to the AWD/weight) the STi will leave a gap a mile long once the road gets curvy.
When it comes down to it, I'll never look at a Challenger driver and claim that they made the wrong choice because they made the right choice for themselves. It's a beautiful car, rides nice and comfy and is hardly underpowered. It's different from what I would choose but it's not a bad choice and the best part is that there's something for everybody.
I grew up a muscle car nut. So I would get a Challenger in a NY minute. It has the look and feel I like. I would never take it to the track so I don't care that it's not as fast as the others. The car looks HOT!!!
Yeah, but he rambled on about entry level luxury. I guess he could have thrown in an ox cart or a jet fighter just in case one of those didnt stick.
But you know where he's coming from...
For clarification, I was referring to the standard WRX, not the STI, and the 1 series, not the 3 series as the entry level luxury car. Both of these cars are capable of 4.6 0-60 times and low 13's in the 1/4. From looking at the challenger forums I see two things - real world times on stock cars are slower, so much slower that you'd have to spend a good deal of time and money to get them down to this point. Second, somebody forgot to tell these challenger owners that they didn't buy a race car, because they're out there dragging them!
IIRC some of the V6 Camrys were pulling times roughly the same as the challenger R/T.
For clarification, I was referring to the standard WRX, not the STI, and the 1 series, not the 3 series as the entry level luxury car. Both of these cars are capable of 4.6 0-60 times and low 13's in the 1/4. From looking at the challenger forums I see two things - real world times on stock cars are slower, so much slower that you'd have to spend a good deal of time and money to get them down to this point. Second, somebody forgot to tell these challenger owners that they didn't buy a race car, because they're out there dragging them!
IIRC some of the V6 Camrys were pulling times roughly the same as the challenger R/T.
To be fair, drag racing and carving up roads doesn't necessarily require the most powerful car. There will always be a faster car and there will always be someone with more money who can make it faster than I can. Part of the fun in drag racing is making the most of an existing platform. There is a thrill in carving up a curvy road as long as the car you're in is decently capable of doing it properly without rolling over. Even running 12’s and 11’s doesn’t mean squat because there are cars that will do it in 9’s.
To be fair, drag racing and carving up roads doesn't necessarily require the most powerful car. There will always be a faster car and there will always be someone with more money who can make it faster than I can. Part of the fun in drag racing is making the most of an existing platform. There is a thrill in carving up a curvy road as long as the car you're in is decently capable of doing it properly without rolling over. Even running 12’s and 11’s doesn’t mean squat because there are cars that will do it in 9’s.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hopefully the two extremes will balance me out over time. 
