The Challenger is so big because it is based on Chrysler's full size RWD platform that the 300 and Charger are built on, according to Car and Driver.
The Camaro is probably built on the same platform as the GTO, which would explain the size...
Does anyone know why all the new cars that are coming out today are so friggin huge? I find it funny how most people don't seem to realize how big an S197 is. It may look smaller compared to the new Camaro and Challenger but its still pretty damn big. Apart from the depreciation, cheapo plastic construction, and sky high insurance rates, that's one major reason why I HATE new cars.
They have......I give you, the 2010 Taurus SHO
Officially Official: 2010 Ford Taurus SHO!
Powered by a 365hp Twin Turbo 3.5L Ecoboost V6, Torque sensing All-Wheel-Drive, Six-speed SelectShift automatic transmission....sex on wheels.
If I ever had an intent on buying a real domestic driver, I'd be setting my sights on this baby.
The Challenger is so big because it is based on Chrysler's full size RWD platform that the 300 and Charger are built on, according to Car and Driver.
The Camaro is probably built on the same platform as the GTO, which would explain the size...
SHO is a 14 second car, 5.2 to 60
still pretty sweet...jury is still out on the looks from the b pillar back though
I know most Mustangs go 14s-15s because they're old beat GTs with the worst driver on the planet. My full weight '88 LX Hatch with a couple bolt ons will go EASY mid 13s with junk gears, and get damn near 30mpg. Sorry, I just don't find it impressive when an expensive, 425hp car can only go 13.0.Maybe if you strip down a coupe and run it on slicks within an inch of its life. Otherwise they're running anywhere from low-14's, to mid-15's. Now that may have been decent for the late-80's and early-90's, but its still considered family sedan performance by todays standards.
As far as the new Mustang goes. A bone stock full weight car running mid-13's, knocking down almost 30mpg and still putting out 315hp with only 4.6L of displacement. Heavy or not, that's impressive no matter how you look at it.
Its no uglier, slower, or less a piece of **** than the last generation of F-bodies.
I see your point with blackened88lx.
Throughout the years, there have been several fox articles about porting stock heads, t-bod, maf or no maf car with full aftermarket exhaust running high 12's to low 13's. However, this was when the cars were new, and also is what I think you were getting at in your post. Now that most of them are well over the 100K mark, most are tired and sloppy in stock form ,or slightly modified, and now, in this day and age, have a hard time holding a candle to the new S-197's; again agreed.
It cracks me up that some members on here will live and die by the 5.0. Certainly it was a great car for its time... like the 55 Chevy was, but to compare it to an S-197 is a hard feat. I can vow that my 93 coupe, even with welded in frame ties and with it only having 85K on the clock still does not feel any where near as tight as my uncle's 08GT. My 04GT does not feel as tight and it feels tighter than my coupe, which is why I enjoy it as a DD.
The challenger has the retro look nailed, but it's just a main street cruiser. The challenger like already stated is a slug. The camaro falls short also, it looks like they where taking there time to design it then rushed the finish. Looking at pics of the dash layout, it's ugly as sin. It has the retro gauges in the console then this ugly radio/hvac set up hanging there like a set of buck teeth next to a huge steering wheel
I also think the square backup lights where a rushed after thought, they just don't look right to me.
If you look at all the #'s neither the challenger or camaro is a drivers car, The camaro taking 162ft to stop from 70mph with huge 14" front & 14.4" brakes, way to much mass & only pulling .85g's no fun to toss this thing around & forget the challenger 182ft to stopand .78g's, my Ford taurus could pull more g's.
The stang has always been a drivers car to me and '10 is by far the best corner carving off the shelf one yet. It stopped in the same 162ft but with 12.4" fronts & 11.8"rears would be nice with bigger brakes but it pulls an impressive .92g's. A car you can run on the 1/4 mile and a track day event , stock..Ford gets the win again
Mind you, my Stang's 800lb lighter so that does help a bit.
Maybe if you strip down a coupe and run it on slicks within an inch of its life. Otherwise they're running anywhere from low-14's, to mid-15's. Now that may have been decent for the late-80's and early-90's, but its still considered family sedan performance by todays standards.
ehh i dont really care about stock numbers anyhow, i have this disease that forces me to spend absurd amounts of cash on any vehicle i own
ahhh i thought i was specialThat same disease is prevalent in owners of newer Mustangs as well as older ones, as I'm sure you know.
I wouldn't exactly call a 35-40k G35 your average "family sedan".
I highly doubt that something like a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord would be able to run with a stock, well kept Fox.
I wouldn't exactly call a 35-40k G35 your average "family sedan".
I highly doubt that something like a Toyota Camry or a Honda Accord would be able to run with a stock, well kept Fox.
Those times listed above are only as good (if not, worse) than a stock fox. Considering the Fox is RWD, lighter, and has much more torque in the lower end, my money will still be on the Fox (granted that its in good shape).
True, but Nissan puts the same motor in much cheaper Altimas Maximas and Sentras. They are a little lighter.
I bet you the average (usually cute) soccer mom driving a 3.5L Altima could give a stock 5.0 a good run, not necessarily beating one per say.
Good thing for us we all mod our 5.0s so we don't have to worry about that....right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?