Modern Camaro Forums banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hey guys,
I was just looking at specs on the Chally R/T and saw this

"The 5.7 Hemi produces 370 horsepower with Chrysler’s five-speed automatic transmission and 375 horsepower with a new six-speed manual transmission. Dodge is claiming 0-60 mph times of less than 6.0 seconds for both transmissions. For an over 4,000 lbs coupe this is very impressive. It’s also a safe assumption that the new R/T will break with ease into the 13 second 1/4 mile range."
--http://www.ericpetersautos.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=551&Itemid=10907

Now i know its 4000+ lbs but Dodge has successfully made an expensive Mustang competitor instead of an expensive Camaro competitor.

I just found this funny that the V6 Camaro can ALMOST keep up with the R/T! :rotflmao: :lol:Sorry to any Mopar fans... I'm pretty brand loyal.

like I said, i bet this has been talked about already and i just missed it so don't get mad at me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
I think 0-60 in just under 6 sec. is not a 13 sec 1/4 mile car.
OK...maybe 13.99 but it dont need slicks cause it is factory sand bagged. :lol:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
like I said, i bet this has been talked about already and i just missed it so don't get mad at me.
No one here is going to get mad for saying the Challenger is slow. Remember, as long as you state facts, people can't get mad. :D
 

·
Premium Member
2001 Camaro Z28
Joined
·
11,842 Posts
In terms of 1/4 mile time, the Challenger R/T is gonna be less than 1/2 a second ahead of the V6 Camaro, and a full second behind the Camaro SS.

And at a base price of $29,995, the Challenger R/T is probably more expensive than a Camaro SS (my guess).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
In terms of 1/4 mile time, the Challenger R/T is gonna be less than 1/2 a second ahead of the V6 Camaro, and a full second behind the Camaro SS.

And at a base price of $29,995, the Challenger R/T is probably more expensive than a Camaro SS (my guess).
I want nothing more than your guess to be right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
I'm not siding with Dodge, but I think a lot of people underestimate the potential of these cars. The key thing to remember is although they are heavy cars, they pack a boatload of torque down low. That equates to 5.XX 0-60 times, not the automotive journalists' 0-60 quote of 6.XX. I've seen it numerous times on the 'weaker' 5.7L hemis. Several of my race buddies have a fistful of 13.6 timeslips on bone stock Magnums, Chargers and 300 C's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,148 Posts
I'm not siding with Dodge, but I think a lot of people underestimate the potential of these cars. The key thing to remember is although they are heavy cars, they pack a boatload of torque down low. That equates to 5.XX 0-60 times, not the automotive journalists' 0-60 quote of 6.XX. I've seen it numerous times on the 'weaker' 5.7L hemis. Several of my race buddies have a fistful of 13.6 timeslips on bone stock Magnums, Chargers and 300 C's.
I will give Dodge that...they have good low end torque. I had a 2000 Durango and it had no problems leaving the light. It had the 5.9 ltr.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
Yeah, I had a 99 Ram 4X4. I loved it's acceleration. But dang it was heavy and ate gas. But then again, now I have a 93 F-150 that eats, drinks, and breathes gas, so....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
No one here is going to get mad for saying the Challenger is slow. Remember, as long as you state facts, people can't get mad. :D

And we all know the Challenger's acceleration clearly resembles a fat girl trying to run.

Hey Hey Hey! Don't get mad, remember? It's a fact.:lookandleave:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I'm not siding with Dodge, but I think a lot of people underestimate the potential of these cars. The key thing to remember is although they are heavy cars, they pack a boatload of torque down low. That equates to 5.XX 0-60 times, not the automotive journalists' 0-60 quote of 6.XX. I've seen it numerous times on the 'weaker' 5.7L hemis. Several of my race buddies have a fistful of 13.6 timeslips on bone stock Magnums, Chargers and 300 C's.
the auto journalist kind of goes with your prediction though. he doesn't say 6.XX, he says under 6 sec. i think its right. look at the LS1 GTO....(just hear me out on this one)... you have a 3700lb car with 350 hp and 0-60 in 5.3 sec. the Chally is a 4000+lb car with only 25 more horse. I dont think that extra 25 ponies will make up for 300 or 400 more lbs. my prediction is 5.8 manual, 5.6-5.7 auto.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
I really hope your right, cause I want a Camaro. But I'm thinking that it'll be probably the same price. My reason for thinking that is the G8 GT before they raised the price to over 30k (which knocked it from number 2 on my list to number 4) was $29995, the R/T's base is $29995. We've all heard that the Camaro would be just over the mustang, the mustang GT Premium is just over 28k.



In terms of 1/4 mile time, the Challenger R/T is gonna be less than 1/2 a second ahead of the V6 Camaro, and a full second behind the Camaro SS.

And at a base price of $29,995, the Challenger R/T is probably more expensive than a Camaro SS (my guess).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
With the G8 GT pricing what it is, is the exact reason i think the Camaro SS will be right around 27000 base price. You get four doors, more space, nicer interior, IMO, with the G8. I just dont see in any way why the Camaro would come in at more than that. some argue that because it has a corvette engine it will be more expensive. But when hasn't it had a Vette engine.
LT1, LS1, and now LS3.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
the auto journalist kind of goes with your prediction though. he doesn't say 6.XX, he says under 6 sec. i think its right. look at the LS1 GTO....(just hear me out on this one)... you have a 3700lb car with 350 hp and 0-60 in 5.3 sec. the Chally is a 4000+lb car with only 25 more horse. I dont think that extra 25 ponies will make up for 300 or 400 more lbs. my prediction is 5.8 manual, 5.6-5.7 auto.
Uncle, I hear you on the numbers, but the one number you're not mentioning is the torque. LS1 GTO's were rated at 365 ftlbs, and the Challenger is rated at 398 ftlbs. Torque is what gets a car moving, and throw in a low tranny first gear.....it narrows the gap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Uncle, I hear you on the numbers, but the one number you're not mentioning is the torque. LS1 GTO's were rated at 365 ftlbs, and the Challenger is rated at 398 ftlbs. Torque is what gets a car moving, and throw in a low tranny first gear.....it narrows the gap.
very, very true.... wasnt thinking of that. I still would say no faster than the LS1 GTO though..... i think thats a fair assumption.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
We've all heard that the Camaro would be just over the mustang, the mustang GT Premium is just over 28k.
I'm hearing from the dealers around my parts is 35K to 42K for a loaded SS/RS. I might have rethink this and go with an LT V6. :(

Larry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
401 Posts
I'm not siding with Dodge, but I think a lot of people underestimate the potential of these cars. The key thing to remember is although they are heavy cars, they pack a boatload of torque down low. That equates to 5.XX 0-60 times, not the automotive journalists' 0-60 quote of 6.XX. I've seen it numerous times on the 'weaker' 5.7L hemis. Several of my race buddies have a fistful of 13.6 timeslips on bone stock Magnums, Chargers and 300 C's.
are those srt8s?
ive seen an srt8 charger run
it couldnt break 13.9
the camaro has a bunch of torque down low as well
and up high
so if ur gunna say those are r/t's ur full of crap
a pro couldnt break 14.2 in the r/t
and thats a pro
so a regular guy that drives it around
will probably run a 15.2
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
I'm hearing from the dealers around my parts is 35K to 42K for a loaded SS/RS. I might have rethink this and go with an LT V6. :(

Larry
Wait until the REAL prices come out in December, then decide. Dealers are guessing. Good dealers can make good guesses, bad ones make bad guesses, but the best dealers make no guesses. Right, Scotty?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
Uncle, I hear you on the numbers, but the one number you're not mentioning is the torque. LS1 GTO's were rated at 365 ftlbs, and the Challenger is rated at 398 ftlbs. Torque is what gets a car moving, and throw in a low tranny first gear.....it narrows the gap.
this makes alil more sence BUT it comes down to power to weight ratio and then factor in traction so you do the math:D
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top