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.
SRT8 or bust. Let me preface this with: I don't consider my car "fast". I can walk Challenger and Charger R/T's in my lightly modded 4banger. Their powerful motors are undercut by their ridiculous weight. But if you have passengers to carry they're a good blend of quickness and comfort. Plus, without a doubt, RWD>FWD.
I considered the SRT8 Jeep, but practicality wise, you will miss the 5mpg across the board you give up to the 6.1 or in later models, 6.4L.
I know, I know, "if you can afford", but it begins to drag on you, it really does. Yes, I've had truly fast cars, sure, and it was super fun, etc. but at the end of the day, there is only so much you can have on the street that you will use. Anything over that, and you're paying for something you aren't getting, or flirting with jail time.
Because in this age of safety nannies and anti-car regulations, it's nice, as a car guy, to see a manufacturer actually produce and sell something so over the top and fun. Manufacturers don't have to make fun cars. They could make a bunch of boring, vanilla sedans for the average non-enthusiast to crawl to work in. So it's refreshing when they occasioanlly stick a big middle finger in the air to the people that want to deny us fun.
Yeah, it's overkill. That's the freaking point!
Okay... What are you going to do with a Hellcat that you can't do with an SRT-8?
You're a tad confused, the Charger is not in the same class as the Mustang and Camaro, Chryslers retro vehicle is the Challenger.
I think you're right. I simply lumped it in because it resurrected the namesake, and was obviously a modern muscle car. Chrysler said as much. Technically though, the Camaro and Mustang (although some argue over the Yenko) was not a muscle car, but a pony car, and the Charger was more a muscle car.
I suppose one could argue that the Charger brought the Muscle car concept back. To me, THAT IS RETRO, but I get what you're saying about the styling, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352
Essentially the same car, no?
Yes and no. Same driveline and chassis. But then again the Cadillac ATS and Camaro are rumored to share the same Chassis once the Camaro is revamped, I believe, and I wouldn't call them the same car.
Nor would I have called the Cadillac XLR-V a Corvette...
Basically yes. I would say the Challenger is more "retro" however and aimed more at the pony car buyers, where the Charger is more modern with a couple retro styling touches. (But we are into shades of grey here). Really they are both probably too big to be true pony cars IMO, but the Camaro and Mustang seem to keep growing too...
Depends on how you define "same". They share a base platform and drivetrain, but one is a sedan and one is a 2 door, 2 different vehicle classes. The Challenger is also a bit lighter.
Basically yes. I would say the Challenger is more "retro" however and aimed more at the pony car buyers, where the Charger is more modern with a couple retro styling touches. (But we are into shades of grey here). Really they are both probably too big to be true muscle cars IMO, but the Camaro and Mustang seem to keep growing too...
Muscle cars WERE big!
The Camaro and Mustang were not muscle cars. They were pony cars.
The Camaro and Mustang were not muscle cars. They were pony cars.
Sorry a typo, meant "Pony"
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.