New Dodge Challenger is a PIG

[harddrivin1le]

Dodge - 2008 Challenger

Curb weight (empty car with a full tank of gas): 4,140 pounds

Fuel economy: 13 city/18 highway.

The new Toyota Landcruiser's fuel economy figures are absolutely identical, even though that is 1,550 pounds heavier.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

Dodge - 2008 Challenger

Curb weight (empty car with a full tank of gas): 4,140 pounds

Fuel economy: 13 city/18 highway.

The new Toyota Landcruiser's fuel economy figures are absolutely identical, even though that is 1,550 pounds heavier.

People that buy this car are probably more worried about what happens when you mash the pedal to the floor, rather than the time spent between fill ups. Then again, those mpg figures are pretty horrid.

[Dino Scuderia]

It won't use much fuel in 20 years rolling up to the auction pad at Barrett-Jackson.

Buyers of these cars will mostly be collectors I would imagine.

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

People that buy this car are probably more worried about what happens when you mash the pedal to the floor, rather than the time spent between fill ups. Then again, those mpg figures are pretty horrid.

Fuel economy was a very significant factor in my decision to purchase my '99 LS1 Camaro, which was EPA rated @ 19 city/28 highway and was fully capable of delivering that in real world driving conditions.

13 city/18 highway is terrible.

The new Toyota Landcruiser gets the same mileage, but it's 1,550 pounds heavier and has a much larger frontal area and AWD.

The 5,700 pound, 403 HP, 6.2 liter Cadillac Escalade AWD is rated @ 12 city/18 highway.

A new, base model Corvette is EPA rated @ 16 city/26 MPG highway, it makes more power and is faster. Real world, "out the door" pricing is similar.


So the Challenger's fuel economy is in par with that of a full size V8 SUV, while it's curb weight is on part with a mid size SUV. What a joke.

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Dino Scuderia

It won't use much fuel in 20 years rolling up to the auction pad at Barrett-Jackson.

Buyers of these cars will mostly be collectors I would imagine.

The cars won't be worth a whole lot because many speculators will have the same idea.

Today's speculators will ruin their own market. Their money would be far better spent in an SP500 mutual fund/ETF.

The only reason the old cars are worth money now is because very few people bought them to store them.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

Fuel economy was a very significant factor in my decision to purchase my '99 LS1 Camaro, which was EPA rated @ 19 city/28 highway and was fully capable of delivering that in real world driving conditions.

13 city/18 highway is terrible.

The new Toyota Landcruiser gets the same mileage, but it's 1,550 pounds heavier and has a much larger frontal area and AWD.

The 5,700 pound, 403 HP, 6.2 liter Cadillac Escalade AWD is rated @ 12 city/18 highway.

A new, base model Corvette is EPA rated @ 16 city/26 MPG highway, it makes more power and is faster. Real world, "out the door" pricing is similar.

That's understandable. While some buyers probably wouldn't buy this car, I'm sure there's a good lot of baby boomers who idolized the challenger of decades ago as young'ns. With a car like this and a steady stream of disposable income, they could realize their dreams. It's not like it has to be used as a daily driver since those specs are probably for the SRT8 model.

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Rockefella

That's understandable. While some buyers probably wouldn't buy this car, I'm sure there's a good lot of baby boomers who idolized the challenger of decades ago as young'ns. With a car like this and a steady stream of disposable income, they could realize their dreams. It's not like it has to be used as a daily driver since those specs are probably for the SRT8 model.

I could order one tomorrow if I wanted one.

I won't, since I have no desire to own a 4,200 pound "performance car" with an automatic transmission that gets 13 MPG.


A new, base model Corvette will run circles around that new Challenger and get vastly superior fuel economy in the process.

[Rockefella]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

I could order one tomorrow if I wanted one.

I won't, since I have no desire to own a 4,200 pound "performance car" with an automatic transmission that gets 13 MPG.


A new, base model Corvette will run circles around that new Challenger and get vastly superior fuel economy in the process.

The new Corvette isn't 'retro' though.

[Cotterik]

heck i dont CARE what MPG it does it looks exactly like its 70s predecessors. And thats fantastic. A much better job looks wise than the latest mustang. I love it.

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Cotterik

heck i dont CARE what MPG it does it looks exactly like its 70s predecessors. And thats fantastic. A much better job looks wise than the latest mustang. I love it.

It weighs 4,140 pounds.

That's a full 600 pounds (three 200 pound passengers) heavier than a new, similarly equipped Mustang GT.

Chrysler doesn't even specify and aluminum engine block for that pig.

The only reason you "don't care" about the mileage is that you will never be buying gasoline for one. $3.50 in gas for every 13 miles driven is ridiculous by most people' standards.

[Cotterik]

hey, its american. If i wanted a grass-cutter I'd get a prius and then I'd have no balls

seriously the type of people who buy these cars will be fans of the previous one/pretty rich and they will put the gas-guzzling problems behind them because of what it is. besides, would it be a challenger if it did 60MPG? not really.

the weight is defintely an issue though. but it does look heavy. I just love the look of it. Its like they finally took a note off ford and went back in time but really didnt make it look cheap it looks like a good old yank muscle car but with all the modern boxes ticked. i think maybe they prioritised all that over its weight and fuel consumption.. but isnt that left up to the muscle-car-modders anyway? Just look at the success of the basic mustang. all a muscle car needs to do for most of its buyers is sound good and look good. I'm pretty sure the cowboys wont spit their corn out and yell "this car is far too damn heavy. and the MPG is just disgraceful! I cant even get to the knicker store without needing to re-fill!".

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by Cotterik

seriously the type of people who buy these cars will be fans of the previous one/pretty rich and they will put the gas-guzzling problems behind them because of what it is. besides, would it be a challenger if it did 60MPG? not really.

That's a ridiculous claim.

I am "the type of person who WOULD buy this car" - if it were 600 pounds lighter and delivered fuel economy that was roughly on par with my 1999 LS1 Z28 Camaro (19 city/28 highway MPG).

As it it now, I have no desire to own one.

13 MPG and a 4,140 pound curb weight is a combination I would expect to see in an SUV.

A base model Corvette is a much better performance car and it's also very fuel efficient.

[kingofthering]

Originally Posted by harddrivin1le

That's a ridiculous claim.

I am "the type of person who WOULD buy this car" - if it were 600 pounds lighter and delivered fuel economy that was roughly on par with my 1999 LS1 Z28 Camaro (19 city/28 highway MPG).

As it it now, I have no desire to own one.

13 MPG and a 4,140 pound curb weight is a combination I would expect to see in an SUV.

A base model Corvette is a much better performance car and it's also very fuel efficient.

Ok... as the others said, it doesn't matter what fuel economy it gets. That's like bitching that a Ferrari F430 gets crap mileage compared to a Toyota Camry. If weight's such a big problem, strip the damn thing yourself.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the GT-R owns this thing.

[harddrivin1le]

Originally Posted by kingofthering

Ok... as the others said, it doesn't matter what fuel economy it gets. That's like bitching that a Ferrari F430 gets crap mileage compared to a Toyota Camry. If weight's such a big problem, strip the damn thing yourself.

Either way, I'm pretty sure the GT-R owns this thing.

It matters to anyone who says it matters, has the money to buy one and would otherwise be interested in buying the car.

The car is 600 pounds heavier than a brand new Mustang GT and gets the same fuel economy as a new Toyota Land Cruiser, which is 1,550 pounds heavier and makes just 44 less HP.

The Challenger is not an efficient car and it is therefore a poorly engineered one.

The GT-R will have NOTHING on a brand new, $46,000 base engine (436 HP LS3) Corvette equipped with RPO Z51. That will become evident once production line stock examples face off against one-another in the various magazines.

[roosterjuicer]

i love the look of the new challenger but this is pretty much dodge standard operating procedure. dodge usually has the worst power/mpg ratio.

no need to compare it to a land cruiser...cause land cruisers are lame. look at a viper, its got an 8.4 litre and 600+ hp and it gets better mileage.

the new camaro will probably not be a lightweight but it will still get good gas mileage (above 30 if they give it DOD). the 99 z28 is a perfect example of this, good mileage and fast as hell...and truth be told a 99 z28 will probably be able to beat or at least keep up with one of these challengers.