...and your standard run of the mill AWD CSM should be able to take one from a dig easily.
| 4g61t.org http://www.4g61t.org/forum/ |
|
| Challenger http://www.4g61t.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=32186 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | 6BoltColt [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Challenger |
There's alot of them running around cleveland. The newer r/t's have a t56 trans available, near 400 hp and sitting about 3800 lbs. Does a 16g fwd colt stand a chance? |
|
| Author: | Evotistical [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
them being heavy as fruit and banana, might give you the edge with your 1 tire fire. |
|
| Author: | 6BoltColt [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
The power to weight ratios are favorable for a csm with 300 hp and 2500 lbs. But obviously torque and traction go to the tcs equipped v8. My race of choice would be a 60 roll but even then it seems close. Also, i dunno what kind of power those 5.7s gain from typical mods. |
|
| Author: | Evotistical [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Motor Trend: 2010 SRT8 Challenger, 0-60 4.8 sec, 13.3 sec @ 106.1 mph 2008 Challenger R/T, 0-60 5.1 sec, 13.6 sec @104 mph Hope this helps! |
|
| Author: | 6BoltColt [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 4:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
point taken sir. |
|
| Author: | Coltsfan [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Quote: Motor Trend:
Looks like the Challengers don't stand a chance.
2010 SRT8 Challenger, 0-60 4.8 sec, 13.3 sec @ 106.1 mph 2008 Challenger R/T, 0-60 5.1 sec, 13.6 sec @104 mph Hope this helps! |
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
I thought the Challengers were up around 4,200lbs. full weight. They're pigs. A CSM with half as much power would be able to take it on the freeway easily. |
|
| Author: | Coltsfan [ Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
...and your standard run of the mill AWD CSM should be able to take one from a dig easily.
|
|
| Author: | 6BoltColt [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Quote: ...and your standard run of the mill AWD CSM should be able to take one from a dig easily.
yea yea 
|
|
| Author: | Mechacode [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Race-wise, colt any day. Style-wise, I'd take a challenger, one done up like an old trans-am racer would look badass. |
|
| Author: | akdriverjd [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
I'm with Mechacode, they got way more style. Plus, Vanishing Point!! 
|
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
The 2011 Mustang GT is by far the best of the retro muscle car fad in terms of performance. They're goddamn fast. The Challenger is very stylish for sure, but they just aren't a good enough performer for the amount of money. |
|
| Author: | 6BoltColt [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
whats the mustang up to?! forgot they were updating the power plant with the sheet metal. the great thing about the challenger to me is, the only people whom i see driving them are older guys reliving their youth, or arabic guys living their youth. basically neither group would think to suspect that my lil blue wagon is about to embarrass them on a Saturday night. if i were to smoke a challenger i'd know the driver is PISSED. im like a highway troll  .
|
|
| Author: | CaptainTonus [ Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Quote: whats the mustang up to?! forgot they were updating the power plant with the sheet metal.
They're rated at like 414hp, but people are putting down like 390 with them, so they're way under-rated. It's a 5.0L motor now, and they trap like 112-113 in the 1/4 and get 26mpg on the highway. Pretty bad ass.
|
|
| Author: | Coltsfan [ Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Challenger |
Quote:
They're rated at like 414hp, but people are putting down like 390 with them, so they're way under-rated. It's a 5.0L motor now, and they trap like 112-113 in the 1/4 and get 26mpg on the highway. Pretty bad ass.
I never liked Fords much, but that is nice. Still I wish Chrysler would bring back the General Lee. Yee Haw!
|
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC-05:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|