Challenger SRT8..disappointed

[Ramairgod84]

true about our cars getting more looks. and about the srt8 jeep...i seriously doubt he could run a 12 unless he did ALOT of modding. And even so, would you really want to drive something that powerful and unstable on the road? being an suv

[ronnie tadlock]

Just how much more do the new Challengers weigh than our cars? I have a copy of the build sheet from my 2001 WS6 and it lists a Gross Weight Rating of 4258 lbs. but doesn't list actual weight of the car. What do these things weigh in at?

[purplebat66]

a trans am weights anywhere from 3400 pounds to 3600 pounds the charger a tade over 4 thousand pounds

[02cetransam]

www.leekspin.com

[RedVertTA]

I don't think anyone was questioning the safety features of these cars....who cares if they are safer then ours......i guarantee that my car will get more looks any day then those cars........ and mine is 8 years old

No I'm not saying anyone is questioning the safety of these cars, forgive me if I made any of you think otherwise, I'm merely pointing out the fact that the extra weight is there for something, that its not dead weight.

Your right about the looks though, our cars do look much better than any of these.

[RedVertTA]

I believe those SRT Jeeps are supercharged hemi, I could be wrong though.

[Shammer]

I killed a srt8 last night about 4 or 5 times from a roll of about 30 and from a stop.

[Shammer]

All i have done is LTs and a 3in y pipe going to a stock catback (just got cutouts put in today)

[c5z28]

I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to bash these cars for the extra weight, they're heavier because of the new safety components. Cars are being produced with more and more safety components each year. It's a deterrent on performance yes, but there is a trade-off to the weight, its not like it's there for nothing.

Our 4th gens really can't compare in the safety area. As far as weight, its not heavy because its a MOPAR, even the 5th gen Camaro has the same problem, the Zeta is known for being heavy, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the 5th gen weights about 4000 pounds as well.

What must really suck for both of these cars is the mileage, more power, less aerodynamics thanks to flat, squared off front ends, and heavier bodies.

What is surprising to me from reading this thread is the fact that the Challengers have trouble hooking traction. I figured with all that extra weight on the rear wheel it should have excellent traction. In addition, the tires on the Challenger are quite large, 20 inch rims I believe, and the tubs can fit even bigger, with those kinds of tires traction should improve.

Does anyone have the weight distribution specs for this car? If its very nose heavy it could be putting lots of weight on the front and not enough on the back and that would explain the traction issue.

When someone buys a vette, cobra or dare I say lambo or ferrari the first thing on our minds isn't, "what kind of side impact rating does it have" Strip the shit off and go faster
factory tires suck on most cars

[RaSScal]

Those tall ugly doors on the new Challengers probably weigh 600lbs. The car is too tall. The '70-'74 Challenger/'Cuda was sooooo much cooler and sleeker of a vehicle and they were much shorter. Chrysler is building the new Challenger on the same frame as the 300 and R/T? And probably sharing the same f*cking doors on all the models.
I look forward to delivering 6500rpm of stroked small block in the "eye" of a new Challenger owner. Or even better at a stop light just yell "go when you want to", knowing there is no challenge in stomping a new Challenger.

[third_shift|studios]

Just how much more do the new Challengers weigh than our cars? I have a copy of the build sheet from my 2001 WS6 and it lists a Gross Weight Rating of 4258 lbs. but doesn't list actual weight of the car. What do these things weigh in at?

i believe "gross weight" is actually how much the car would way with 4 average passengers in it. But as mentioned, they are only about 3600 lb cars + your weight