[firefish]

Had the opportunity today to testdrive both the new Challenger and the new Camaro - nice rides! The Challenger had the 6,1 liter 3rd gen Hemi and the Camaro had, well I don't know but guessing, a 350 of some kind. Despite the same output the Hemi is all over the 350 but in all other aspects the Chevy beats the Dodge, much thanks to the stick in the Camaro vs the auto tranny in the Challenger. The Challenger has better looks though. In the end I'd rather have the Camaro since it is a better driver and as the driver you sit better and it is more responsive. But the Challenger with Sparcos and a manual gearbox would top the list me thinks... [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, I'm pleased that they can still build nice cars in the US that puts a broad smile on my face. But the ol' 968 is still too hard to beat.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

<!--quoteo(post=77552:date=Aug 13 2009, 04:29 AM:name=firefish)-->QUOTE (firefish @ Aug 13 2009, 04:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->...Despite the same output the Hemi is all over the 350...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Do you mean the Challenger was faster than the Camero?

The reason I ask is that the V8 Camero SS (6.2L, 426 bhp) should be quicker than the Challenger SRT8 (6.1L, 425 bhp) because the Camero is about 300 lbs lighter.

And here's a review with some comparison numbers: http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=154386

Karl.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[biotechee]

I think all the newly designed/redesigned cars (Challenger, Camaro & Mustang) are awesome looking. But, in the traditional American way, they're pigs in the weight department. It is such a downer to read about all the amazing power specs, then see the weight. Nonetheless, I'd be happy to have any of them in my driveway. Stirs up my desire for a 1969/70 Boss 429 like you can't imagine! I would love to make a replica 429.... (second would be a replica Yenko Camaro, since I can't afford the real deal for either).

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rhudeboye]

Not a fan of the Challenger. IMO the Camaro blows it away in looks.

Not sure how close the 2 are (challenger and Charger) but my experience with the charger was disappointing. It's a big car with a lot of mass and trying to enjoy it in the corners wasnt going to happen. And the response from the wheel is very sedan like. Perhaps their goal was to make an in between, sports car / sedan. The intr was also quite bland for a 2007 model.

For some reason I suspect the Challenger is going to be the same.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[rhudeboye]

Every time you Turn the wheel or step on the brakes your reminded of how heavy the car is and that it's limits are no where near that vette, GTI, G35 etc in front of you.

(Thought this was going to link up to my last message. Must of waited too long)

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

In a recent Car & Driver comparison test, the 2010 Mustrang totally blew away both the Challenger and Camaro. The Mustang is significantly lighter than the other two, and C & D just said the Mustang is an utterly superior car to the other two in just about every category, despite its significant horsepower disadvantage, and solid rear axle. But I do think the Camaro looks pretty cool. I liked the Challenger at first, but I'm already tired of it. Plus, that car is really a pig, weight-wise. None of these cars are really my cup of tea, though. I'm sticking with the 968 for sure.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[wjk_glynn]

<!--quoteo(post=77852:date=Aug 14 2009, 04:51 PM:name=Cloud9...68)-->QUOTE (Cloud9...68 @ Aug 14 2009, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->In a recent Car & Driver comparison test, the 2010 Mustrang totally blew away both the Challenger and Camaro...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yup, I've been reading quite a few similar reviews recently with the same results. And for those who haven't read or heard about the 2010 Mustang GT, it's available with a "Track Pack" suspension and tire upgrade that seems to significantly tighten things up. All of the reviews say this car with that package is a significant step up from the 2009 model in terms of handling.

Now its still not a sports car. The 370Z definitely has better handling. But as a GT car, the 2010 Mustang GT w/Track Pack appears to be quite decent... despite the log-axle.

Karl.

PS: Some comparison reviews for anyone who is interested:

• http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/compar...omparison_tests
  http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes...g_gt/index.html
  http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...rticleId=144526</li>

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

it stuns me how heavy these cars are - the new mustang, a full 1000lbs more than the early ones, is LIGHTER than the camaro and challenger? - that is truly sad - we used to think of 3800lbs as extremely heavy - that was what the big body dodges used to weigh - the smaller cars were a few hundred pounds less

what happened to those cool space age materials that were supposed to make cars lighter?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[firefish]

With focus on the engine only the Hemi is a far better behaving mill than the 350, no concern taken to 0 - 60 times etc. We had the Mustang and the Corvette too but I didn't get to drive either of them since I'm on vacation and the only reason that I got to take the other two for a spin was that two colleagues stopped by as I have always had a soft spot for mopars and oldest son (7) is a huge transformers fan (hence the Camaro).

I like the looks of of the Challenger. The Camaro and the Mustang looks too chunky imo but each to their own. Interior is far better in the Camaro than the Challenger and you sit way better. And I like driving a big V8 with a stick (although one realizes in a flash just how good a box we are blessed with in the 968). I don't know if you can get a manual tranny in the Challenger.

With focus on performance the outcome of the test was off course that the Corvette is a very very fast car and the other three are dogs. But that wasn't the idea. The idea was to to evaluate these cars availability to take you bake in time to the mid sixties and let you forget about green house effect and such for a while. In this the dogs prevailed, more true to their origin.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

<!--quoteo(post=77859:date=Aug 14 2009, 08:29 PM:name=flash)-->QUOTE (flash @ Aug 14 2009, 08:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->it stuns me how heavy these cars are - the new mustang, a full 1000lbs more than the early ones, is LIGHTER than the camaro and challenger? - that is truly sad - we used to think of 3800lbs as extremely heavy - that was what the big body dodges used to weigh - the smaller cars were a few hundred pounds less

what happened to those cool space age materials that were supposed to make cars lighter?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, it's amazing how heavy cars have become. A big part of it is the safety regulations - modern cars are infinitely more crash-worthy than the older light-weights. Think of how many air bags are in a modern car. Chassis's are also dramtaically stiffer than in years past, and this adds lots of weight. And of course we can't forget all the modern luxury items that used to be only available in more upscale cars - things like power windows, seats, mirrors, high-end sterios, nav systems, extra sound-deadening, automatic transmissions in something like 95% of all new cars, etc. Imagine the kind of mileage and performance that could be had with a modern engine stuffed into one of the old light-weight cars.

As far as the light-weight exotic materials, the big problem is cost. I've heard the epoxy used to protect the Corvette ZR1's carbon fiber roof from UV costs something like $2000/gallon. Ouch!

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.