6R9Runner
Well-Known Member
If so, I'm getting bitch-slapped by some people that haven't done their research and are taking misguided brand loyalty to new heights. Check the Moparty 2010 thread. I posted all of the important data points in that thread. The Challengers are obese by any sensible measuring stick, and the SRT8 gets its ASS KICKED by the base Mustang GT - not the the GT500 mind you - the friggin' base GT - in EVERY MEANINGFUL, MEASURABLE category except braking thanks to the giant Brembos the SRT8 is packing. Considering what it has for brakes, God, I would hope so...ACME A12 said:never drove one and for the price i could build another hemi....they do haul ass.....Ray... your getting bitched slappedgeorge68hemirr said:[quote="ACME A12":6xwdzqko]
Bunch of wasted footage on those new challenger land barges... :leave:
:jester:
... I'm perfectly comfy with my opinion and the company I'm keeping. :jester:[/quote:6xwdzqko]
You are absolutely right about the specifications, and we can use the same logic to compare the following 2 cars. The sensible thing would be to choose Car #1 based on weight, price and practically the same performance. See below, and my comment at the very bottom.
Car #1 specs:
Wheelbase, inches: 108.1
Weight, lbs: 3,790
Number built: 13,970
Base price: $3,100
Top Available Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 396
Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl.
Compression ratio: 11.0:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 375 @ 5600
Torque @ rpm: 415 @ 4600
Representative Performance
0-60 mph, sec: 6.8
1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.7 @ 98.7
Car #2 specs:
Wheelbase, inches: 116.0
Weight, lbs: 3,841
Number built: 1,920
Base price: $4,298
Standard Engine
Type: ohv V-8
Displacement, cid: 440
Fuel system: 1 x 4bbl.
Compression ratio: 10.0:1
Horsepower @ rpm: 375 @ 4600
Torque @ rpm: 480 @ 3200
Representative Performance
0-60 mph, sec: 6.7
1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 14.3 @ 103.7
Car #1 is a 1969 Camaro SS396. Car #2 is a 1970 Superbird (source- howstuffworks). Thankfully, forty years ago, 1,920 misguided people bought a Superbird. ot: