2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8 vs. 2008 Shelby GT500

RedFox

Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
208
Location
N/A
First impressions.

I've seen the car several times. They did a fantastic job on the styling but its very big, heavy and thirsty. Built on previous generation MB E-Class chassis. The E-class is getting a complete re-design, I believe in the next year so these cars will be two full generations behind. I love the styling but wished it was at least 500lbs lighter, as I'm sure Chryco does too. Only so much they can do with the platform.

"Herb Helbig is dead serious. He's about to turn loose a group of journalists who still don't get why some top-line racing series never recruited them.

"Don't. Wreck. My. Cars," says the now-retired chief engineer of Dodge's SRT performance arm. "Don't even put a wheel off, or we're going to have a talk."

On a cold, wet December day at the Texas Motorsports Ranch road course southwest of Fort Worth, the odds appear good that Helbig--outfitted in his oddly intimidating trademark Viper SRT10 jacket and snakeskin (natch) cowboy boots--might get a last chance to light into at least one of his guests.

Rain and a frighteningly slippery track cause Helbig and company to pull the plug on driving the new 600-hp Dodge Viper ACR ("Track Rat's Snake," AW, Feb. 4). But test drives of the 2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8--here having its final production settings dialed in--remain on the schedule. That's good news, if you can somehow forget that these cars are worth a great deal more than the production models. It would be bad to bend the $40,158 retail version, catastrophic to write off a $250,000 development mule.

It's difficult, then, to glean much from this first drive, where simply keeping the car stuck to the "rain" line around the track's perimeter constitutes a job done well and where even straightaway speeds rarely exceed 60 mph. Yet some things are obvious.

Beneath skin crafted in honor of the original 1970 Challenger--note the omission of Dodge's modern-day crosshair grille, a positive change from the 2006 concept car--is the LX platform that also underpins Dodge's Magnum and Charger and Chrysler's 300C. A shorter wheelbase, down to 116 inches from its siblings' 120 (giving the platform an LC internal designation), differentiates the Challenger and was necessary to accommodate the coupe's styling. But don't expect to find a noticeably dartier car or a much lighter one. This Challenger weighs 4140 pounds versus the Charger SRT8's 4160. Likewise, the weight distribution is a nearly identical 55.6/44.4.

Neither does the Challenger feature the most extreme suspension setup of the LX family, as perhaps anticipated. Springs and dampers are tuned to fall between the settings of the 300C SRT8 and the Charger SRT8, with the overall ride-and-handling equation leaning toward the Charger rather than the 300C while eliminating some of the Charger's rear-end harshness.

"We realize that customers for this vehicle want a little bit of nostalgic body roll but not so much as on the 300C," says Adam Forte, SRT vehicle synthesis manager. "I want it to take an initial roll set quickly, without much jounce, and want it to feel very stable."

Forte and company appear to have met their goal. Though track conditions vetoed aggressive exploration of anything approaching the car's limits, the Challenger does indeed roll mildly into corners and holds its stance nicely. There's a big difference between acceptable modern-day chassis movement and the boat-on-the-high-seas pitching of yesteryear, and the car definitely feels better than the 300C without cornering quite as flat as the Charger.

Slip-sliding and transitioning drastically from understeer to oversteer, it is difficult to nail down the Challenger's ultimate disposition, but previous experience with other LX-based cars indicates it is competent for track running and plenty amusing on the street. In most driving conditions, though, we expect a negligible performance

difference between the Challenger and its stablemates, as the platform and drivetrain are the same.

Style is a different story. The Challenger has a visual presence that's lacking in the other Chrysler and Dodge offerings, and the SRT model will stand out from lesser

Challengers, thanks to 20-inch wheels and tires (standard 245/45 all-seasons front and rear, optional 245/45 front and 255/45 rear Goodyear Eagle F1s), as well as aerodynamic upgrades and parts, including wheelhouse and front-end aero planes and chin and rear spoilers.

A reworked braking system is improved. As do all SRT models, the Challenger uses a fixed-caliper, opposed-piston Brembo package, with large rotors (14.2-inch front, 13.8 rear) and four-piston calipers. But an upgrade to the ABS/ESP software eliminates "knockback," a phenomenon common during high-performance driving whereby heavy cornering loads force the rotors to flex and knock the pistons back into the caliper. This results in long brake-pedal feel; initial pedal pressure merely moves the pistons back into their proper position before any actual braking occurs.

Forte tapped into the ABS/ESP module, which uses a lateral g-force sensor to tell the ESP system when to intervene. Now, whenever lateral acceleration exceeds 0.6 g and then drops below 0.3 g, the software knows that the car has exited a hot corner and automatically primes the brakes, moving the pistons to their rightful place and reducing pedal travel. Dodge will not say so officially, but the new software should find its way into all LX-platform cars by 2009.

When you stand on the other pedal, the Challenger again feels familiar. The SRT-tuned 6.1-liter Hemi V8 produces the same 425 hp at 6200 rpm and 420 lb-ft of torque at 4800. Unique exhaust and intake tuning provide a slightly deeper rumble, but actual performance mirrors what we've seen before: 0 to 60 mph in the low five-second range, quarter-mile somewhere in the 13s. Chrysler's five-speed automatic is once again the only transmission choice, but a six-speed automatic is in the works, and SRT engineers fight to hide sly grins when pressed about a manual gearbox.

As for the finished product, dealers are taking orders now, and the first year's run of 6400 SRT8s will start to arrive at dealerships in May, when prime weather will fully reveal both the good and the bad that the Challenger has to offer.

For now, we're happy we didn't have to have that talk with Helbig."
 

Nathan'sTsi

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,293
Location
Texas
My favorite part of the challenger...here is a quote from the Autoweek article
"This Challenger weighs 4140 pounds versus the Charger SRT8's 4160. Likewise, the weight distribution is a nearly identical 55.6/44.4."

4100+. lol
 

Fourcam330

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
6,743
Location
OH
I win!:banana:

What's the official time for an LS F-body, or GT500 vs. what they actually run. You're kidding yourself, based on the number of Chargers and 300Cs that already have already done so, if you don't think a good number of these cars will run 12s out the factory door.
 
Last edited:

Formula51

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,351
Location
Greenville, SC
What's the official time for an LS F-body, or GT500 vs. what they actually run. You're kidding yourself, based on the number of Chargers and 300Cs that already have already done so, if you don't think a good number of these cars will run 12s out the factory door.

Has everyone lost all of their sense of humor around here?!? Was the dancing banana not enough!

Of course some will run faster, and some will run slower. Manufacturers times for modern cars are much closer than they used to be, partly due to SAE certification.

Best totally stock time for a Charger SRT-8 or 300C SRT-8 is around 12.8 or 12.9 I think? Most are in the low 13's. Just as the best time for a stock LS2 GTO is 12.9, but most are in the low 13's.

4th Gen Z28's and 03-04' Cobras do not follow this same trend, due to how severely underrated they were.
 

eci

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
582
Location
wash
I don't know why people count GM out. As far as performance is concerned, the Camaro *dominated* the Mustang from 1993 - 2002. 93' Mustang Cobra versus 93' LT1 Camaro = lose for Mustang. How about 2002, when your best bet was a 2001 Cobra... run that against a 2002 Camaro SS? Ford didn't regain the crown again until 2003, when the Camaro was gone.

PS: yeah yeah " BUt When yOU mODdded th eStang!!!"

We are talking stock - stock.
 

Fourcam330

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2005
Messages
6,743
Location
OH
Has everyone lost all of their sense of humor around here?!? Was the dancing banana not enough!

My apologies if I overlooked it.

Of course some will run faster, and some will run slower. Manufacturers times for modern cars are much closer than they used to be, partly due to SAE certification.

Best totally stock time for a Charger SRT-8 or 300C SRT-8 is around 12.8 or 12.9 I think? Most are in the low 13's. Just as the best time for a stock LS2 GTO is 12.9, but most are in the low 13's.

4th Gen Z28's and 03-04' Cobras do not follow this same trend, due to how severely underrated they were.

The quickest ever ET for an LX SRT8 was a 12.7-12.8 (same for the Jeep despite the 600lb weight disadvantage and brick like aero thanks to the AWD). Most run 13 flat, some run high 12s, others low 13s.
I also think manufacturers numbers are crap. Porsche for instance, always underrates their performance numbers. Besides that rags don't actually test at quarter mile strips, they use the same flat surface with a fifth wheel or GPS and they weather correct. Any one of those differences is enough to throw the test of by a few tenths.
 

Formula51

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,351
Location
Greenville, SC
My apologies if I overlooked it.

The quickest ever ET for an LX SRT8 was a 12.7-12.8 (same for the Jeep despite the 600lb weight disadvantage and brick like aero thanks to the AWD). Most run 13 flat, some run high 12s, others low 13s.

I disagree that MOST run 13 flat from what I have seen on message boards, but regardless, it sounds like we basically agree.

Fourcam330 said:
Besides that rags don't actually test at quarter mile strips, they use the same flat surface with a fifth wheel or GPS and they weather correct. Any one of those differences is enough to throw the test of by a few tenths.

All true, but the key is that they use the same method (even though it is not the most accurate) every time, for all cars they test. Thus, comparing their numbers for one car, against their numbers for another, is FAIRLY accurate.
 

Formula51

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
2,351
Location
Greenville, SC
I don't know why people count GM out. As far as performance is concerned, the Camaro *dominated* the Mustang from 1993 - 2002. 93' Mustang Cobra versus 93' LT1 Camaro = lose for Mustang. How about 2002, when your best bet was a 2001 Cobra... run that against a 2002 Camaro SS? Ford didn't regain the crown again until 2003, when the Camaro was gone.

PS: yeah yeah " BUt When yOU mODdded th eStang!!!"

We are talking stock - stock.

Don't bring that stuff in here. This is supposed to be about the GT500 and the Challenger.

I think the Challenger is going to be somewhat disappointing in performance, atleast at first. Without a doubt, the GT500 is the faster and better car of the two! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
 

Ry_Trapp0

Condom Model
Established Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
12,287
Location
Hebron, Ohio
and im still laughing at the people who said "the GT500 is a pig, im holding out for a challenger!" way back when! LMFAO!!!
 

Cobranator

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
221
Location
Kelowna, B.C. Canada.
and im still laughing at the people who said "the GT500 is a pig, im holding out for a challenger!" way back when! LMFAO!!!

My sentiments exactly. Probably the same people that berated the GT500 for being a heavy pig are going all GAGA over the Challenger with approx. 200 lbs more weight and less power. Geeeezzz!!! :shrug:Some people's kids.:loser::)
 
Last edited:

Captain Beyond

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,922
Location
TX
I don't know why people count GM out. As far as performance is concerned, the Camaro *dominated* the Mustang from 1993 - 2002. 93' Mustang Cobra versus 93' LT1 Camaro = lose for Mustang. How about 2002, when your best bet was a 2001 Cobra... run that against a 2002 Camaro SS? Ford didn't regain the crown again until 2003, when the Camaro was gone.
We are talking stock - stock.

Actually, the Camaro dominated the Mustang only in 98-02 with their ls1. The 93 Cobra, with it's underated hp #s and lighter weight, was just as quick or quicker than the 93 z/28. The 96-97 Cobras were also slightly quicker than the 96-97 z/28s. You forgot to mention that the Mustang also dominated the Camaro from 82-93 during it's 5.0 era. :coolman:
 
Last edited:

eci

Banned
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
582
Location
wash
Actually, the Camaro dominated the Mustang only in 98-02 with their ls1. The 93 Cobra, with it's underated hp #s and lighter weight, was just as quick or quicker than the 93 z/28. The 96-97 Cobras were also slightly quicker than the 96-97 z/28s. You forgot to mention that the Mustang also dominated the Camaro from 82-93 during it's 5.0 era. :coolman:

I have 2 5.0's and RACED in that era. Around 93 I had GT40 iron heads, upper/lower, gears, exhaust, headers, and would lose to LT1's by a car. Quit bench racing. Stock 93 Cobra's couldn't take the Z28's. Cute that you compare the 96/97 Cobra's to the Z28's, and not the SS of those years =D. Cobra's lost to SS, GT's were owned by Z28's. It's why I didn't buy a Mustang again until the termies came out. 94 - 02 were turds.

Back OT, the Challenger seems more like a "cruiser" to me.
 
Last edited:

Rick James

Got Brimley???
Established Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2004
Messages
4,763
Location
MD
I have 2 5.0's and RACED in that era. Around 93 I had GT40 iron heads, upper/lower, gears, exhaust, headers, and would lose to LT1's by a car. Quit bench racing. Stock 93 Cobra's couldn't take the Z28's. Cute that you compare the 96/97 Cobra's to the Z28's, and not the SS of those years =D. Cobra's lost to SS, GT's were owned by Z28's. It's why I didn't buy a Mustang again until the termies came out. 94 - 02 were turds.

Back OT, the Challenger seems more like a "cruiser" to me.

Quoted for truth. My 96 Cobra would outrun LT1 Z's, but the SS and WS6's could take me.....
 

RedFox

Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2001
Messages
208
Location
N/A
[QUOTE
Back OT, the Challenger seems more like a "cruiser" to me.[/QUOTE]

The majority of people buy these new age pony cars due to styling, nostalgia, hype and they are after all decent cars. Not great cars. In terms of innovation or technology, certainly nothing ground breaking. In a car market where so many cars look similar, their styling is an obvious differentiator. Hats off to Ford and Chrysler for doing such a superb styling job. I still have to see the final version of the Camaro, but I'm sure that GM fans will line up as fast as they can build them for the first 3-5 years.

***Ha, ha. My auto spell check highlighted Camaro and suggested "Camry". Guess the Camaro name is almost as forgotten by the techie crowd as it is in the market place...
 

Captain Beyond

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,922
Location
TX
I have 2 5.0's and RACED in that era. Around 93 I had GT40 iron heads, upper/lower, gears, exhaust, headers, and would lose to LT1's by a car. Quit bench racing. Stock 93 Cobra's couldn't take the Z28's. Cute that you compare the 96/97 Cobra's to the Z28's, and not the SS of those years =D. Cobra's lost to SS, GT's were owned by Z28's. It's why I didn't buy a Mustang again until the termies came out. 94 - 02 were turds.

:lol:

Maybe you can't drive, :rolleyes: but your car should've run much better with those mods. I've owned dozens of Mustangs and have also "raced in that era". I never lost a race to any 93 Z/28 with my 93 Cobra. Go over to the 93 Cobra subforum and inquire. Most will probably tell you that it's driver's race between both. I also never lost to any LTI Z/28 with my 96 Mystic Cobra. It was usually a driver's race against the SS versions though. However, I couldn't keep up with the LS1 versions. But, that all changed when I got my Terminator. I will agree with you that the GTs were turds. That's why I always bought the SVT version. :-D
Let's get back on topic. I think this Challenger is cool, but I like my GT500 better. :coolman:
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread



Top