Challenger SRT Super Stock MSRP $79,595
- Thread starter Bensin
- Start date
+1
Although I feel they deserve a c-hair of credit for at least giving weight some consideration for a change. lol
Reduces rotational mass and unsprung weight. Helps even in Drag racing.
As much as I’m a challenger fan, I kinda have to agree lol.
There honestly isn't much they can do. The weight is built into the very chassis and spread all over the car.
About the only thing they could realistically do for weight would be an aluminum block and save 70# at the cost of strength, commonality and price.
Also, the S550 GT500 weights 4,300lbs, making it the fattest 500 ever despite its extensive use of exotic material and weight savings. So despite being smaller, more expensive, being two decades newer and all the focus on weight savings, the GT500 is only 4.5% lighter.
807hp. 10.5 1/4-mile. Nice!
Speaking of...what gives the new 500 the added ~500lbs over a GT and/or GT350? Blower + added cooling and DCT are the only things that come to mind right off the bat. It's pretty sad to think that Terminators used to be considered portly compared to cars nowadays. I remember parking next to a colleague's 6.1 SRT Challenger back in 2011ish. That thing made my car look tiny! Granted I'm lowered, but it looked like a monster truck next to mine. lol
Love how Fiat cracked down. as the Demon with 840 was able to do 9.65 LOL Yeah SRT has been told never to do that ever again period. So I'll beleive this time if anyone (customer that is not associated with FCA in any way) has done it multiple times about 6-12 then I'll say it was legit.
Beast of a factory offering. Very cool!
Several have hit it now. One even recently broke it with a 9.57 Quarter.
Came with the single seat stripped interior like Chrysler or did they have to modify it.? Again just like it came from FCA that means 1 seat ,stripped, and the original tires!
Yes, Factory stock.
Modified cars have destroyed that record. In the first year Speedkore ran a 8.77 in full car with 1,200hp. I think someone is at 8.03 now but didn't find it in my 5 second Goluag search.
But is it $58k otd?
@ON D BIT LOL! I remember that post...
absolutely love this car. if i was in the market for a new car right now this would def be my first choice.
that is, if i could afford it lol... $80k now for a muscle car??? that's really getting out of the reach of the average joe imo. to compare - adjusted for inflation - in 1970 you could buy three top-dog hemicudas/challengers for what this car costs now. even my 2004 cobra was about twice what a 1970 hemi sold for new. so apparently the trend continues... will a 2035 buick grand national be $130K? jeezus
and the smaller brakes on this car aren't for weight savings, they're to fit the smaller 18" diameter wheels. that was the reason the demon had smaller brakes. smaller rim = larger sidewall = better straight line acceleration
that is, if i could afford it lol... $80k now for a muscle car??? that's really getting out of the reach of the average joe imo. to compare - adjusted for inflation - in 1970 you could buy three top-dog hemicudas/challengers for what this car costs now. even my 2004 cobra was about twice what a 1970 hemi sold for new. so apparently the trend continues... will a 2035 buick grand national be $130K? jeezus
and the smaller brakes on this car aren't for weight savings, they're to fit the smaller 18" diameter wheels. that was the reason the demon had smaller brakes. smaller rim = larger sidewall = better straight line acceleration
I don't think they're "lightweight" brakes, like a drag set-up would be. It's just the smaller calipers and rotors from the regular 392 to fit behind the smaller wheels. It's technically lighter but only because the size went down.
It's hard to do direct inflation calculations. A top model Hemi E-Body was $5,400 in 1970. The Hemi engine as $850 alone.
So while $5,400 today is only $38,000, it's not an apples to oranges comparison.
Of the 76k Challengers sold in 1970, only 356 had Hemi engines because it was seen as ungodly expensive.
Average house cost $27k back then ($180k today) compared to $320k today.
Funny thing is, people cry about stagnant wages and everything getting expensive, average household income in 1970 was $8,500 ($30,000 today) compared to today's $64,000...
Hahahaha
Users who are viewing this thread
