2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Spotted in Full Production Trim

[05GT Guru]

All new muscle cars have IRS, and you talk about gas prices i got 27mpg with my 400hp at the crank trans am, thats better than i get in my 250hp legacy most freeway drives, the new vette gets 24mpg with 625hp and no cylinder shut off. The muscle cars arent going away if we keep finding ways to make power and still have decent gas mileage.

[rao]

Oh man... once again, the "Legacy (sub: WRX, Evo, SRT4 or any 4-banger turbo here) is king of all cars, anything that weighs more than 3400lbs is a slow tank and can't accelerate for crap, can't take a 30mph corner at more than 20mph, I was born after 1980, anything but IRS sucks balls and can't keep up with me, peak oil is past, 'muscle-cars' will disappear and no one will buy/enjoy them with $5.00/gallon gas, I've actually never owned a muscle-car" crowd emerges

 

Excuse me, but the LEGACY and the LEGACY ALONE is the King of Cars!!!

 

 

[CTlegacy06]

All new muscle cars have IRS, and you talk about gas prices i got 27mpg with my 400hp at the crank trans am, thats better than i get in my 250hp legacy most freeway drives, the new vette gets 24mpg with 625hp and no cylinder shut off. The muscle cars arent going away if we keep finding ways to make power and still have decent gas mileage.

 

A vette has awesome aerodynamics and is very low to ground (lower center of gravity) so it actually is designed to not only go fast, but handle that power in turns. Also the vette has gearing up to like 200mph so highway speeds should be at low revs, if Subaru and other makers had any common sense they would make their top gear a cruising gear so that higher mpg could be achieved, seriously who the hell is "racing" in top gear, downshift if the power is needed. ALSO YOUR LEGACY IS AWD DURRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrr rather than RWD, thats gonna affect fuel efficiency drastically but yield better handling and bad weather handling. If i had the money floating around and the desire for a fast car id rather put that toward a "dedicated" race car like a vette than a slow tank pseudo muscle car like the challenger.

[SubLo]

:lol:

 

Once again, the Interweb bbs thing yields all types - good, bad, in between, genius, beautiful, fugly, utterly retarded, dumb as bricks, etc. Ain't it grand?

[RobE]

Oh man... once again, the "Legacy (sub: WRX, Evo, SRT4 or any 4-banger turbo here) is king of all cars, anything that weighs more than 3400lbs is a slow tank and can't accelerate for crap, can't take a 30mph corner at more than 20mph, I was born after 1980, anything but IRS sucks balls and can't keep up with me, peak oil is past, 'muscle-cars' will disappear and no one will buy/enjoy them with $5.00/gallon gas, I've actually never owned a muscle-car" crowd emerges

solid axles do suck balls

[05GT Guru]

Solid axles are good for straight line racing which is what alot of cars are used for. So in those cars they make sense. I have solid axle and IRS setup for my supra, i have only ever had the live axle in the car once and it was sooo much easier to launch i was also able to launch at a higher rpm than with the IRS. I do admit the IRS is better for handling and since my car is a street car i keep the IRS in. IRS also weighs more than live axles. I ran an 11.09 with IRS and i know with the 120lbs weight lose and the ability to launch the car harder plus my live axle rear has 4.11s compared to the 3.73s in my IRS my supra would be a 10.6-10.8 car. Its really what you use the car for, my Trans am had a live axle it was lowered with custom brakes and that car was very tight sure it didnt take to bumps very well but sports cars arent supposed to.

[IwannaSportSedan]

Solid axles are good for straight line racing which is what alot of cars are used for.

 

...sure it didnt take to bumps very well but sports cars arent supposed to.

 

You might want to re-read the definition of a sports car. IF you MEANT 'muscle-car', then I could somewhat agree with you. Sports cars are FAR more about handling than power, or drag racing. (including bumps on road courses, or public road driving. Sports car is different than 'RACE-car', also.) Corvette and Viper straddle that fence, between super-sports car, and muscle-car.

 

I would almost argue that the 300ZX and 90's Supra did, too. They handled pretty well, but they were heavy, and had a pronounced focus on engine power, and they had more than two seats, which is is a definitive factor to some. Sports cars almost always have two seats. Sport Coupes (G37, M3, among many others), or Muscle cars often have 2+2 arrangements. Most enthusiasts consider the 911 Porsche to straddle that line, as well. Carreras and Turbos tend to be grouped as grand touring or sport coupes, GT3 and GT2 (ironically NOT grand tourers) with no rear seats, and a decidedly 'racier' bent, are considered more focused sports cars, as are the less powerful 2-seat Boxter and Cayman, both excellent handling cars.

 

My Miata is a sports car, and it has almost NO power, but it handles. My father's MG-B is the same thing from ~40 years ago. There is a whole genre of british-type roadsters that are sports cars, but are not necessarily powerful. But they do handle, given for the date they were built/designed. Some sports cars have power, some do not. Power is not the defining characteristic. Handling and chassis feel usually is.

 

Maybe YOU use cars for straight line racing, but what percentage of the population of car drivers do that? 2%, as a generous estimate? Even if you take the microcosm of 'Muscle-car' buyers, of new or used domestic RWD coupes, like the Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, and a few imports like Supra, 300ZX, and others, it is still probably a small minority, probably not more than 15% are actively drag-raced. Most are just driven on the street, some more than others.

 

I have never wanted to straight-line-race my cars. It doesn't turn me on, and my cars have always been my sole daily transportation, and risking them in potentially destructive endeavors has not been a real option, especially due to insurance being voided by that sort of legal or illegal competition. I can't afford to destroy my transportation mode by doing that. I only bring that up because I would bet 98% of drivers, and probably 99.8% of the cars on the road are in that group, even ~85% of other performance oriented cars.

 

The only "muscle" car left with a Live Axle from the factory, is the Mustang. Challenger, and Camaro, and the previous GTO all had, or will have IRS, because MOST of them sold are street cars that people drive to work, and to the grocery store, but like the looks and feel of that particular kind of car.

 

Most are NOT drag-raced.

 

And you have made the point of my other long-held belief, also. Even if the Mustang had been offered with an IRS, as it should have been, the drag-racer community are tuners, and will put optimized live-axle setups under the car anyway, and usually not regular stock-style axles anyway. Big brakes, large ratio gears, and probably a 9" differential housing, rather than the stock 8.8.

 

Why cater all the mustangs to them, when they'll replace it anyway, and everyone else has to deal with pot-holes and frost-heaves, or water washouts, or other uneven pavement on real roads? IRS excels in those conditions.

 

And I'd rather trim a couple hundred pounds out of the unibody by making it lighter, smaller, and more sleek, and having the weight in the IRS, low in the chassis, and balancing the weight distribution against the front engine. Lighter in the rear end is lighter, sure, but a light rear end is not great on the street, in the rain or snow. Why does the Corvette, GT-R, front-engine Porsches, and others have rear transaxles??? Weight distribution. And ALL of those cars have IRS with it.

 

Sure, Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang are drag-racing favorites. Drag racers are going to mod and tune to win anyway. Ford's Motorsport catalog should sell a drag-pack with an "official aftermarket", or even dealer-installed-option, with a 9" rear end. Those who want it can buy it. But for the rest of the daily drivers, IRS makes more sense, but isn't offered on the Mustang, and is offered on the Challenger, and old GTO, and will be on the Zeta Camaro.

[Mitch]

Iwanna... You beat me to quoting the "sports cars aren't supposed to."

 

It didn't make any sense to me either.

Surprising to me since that poster HAS a Supra and a Trans-am.

 

I wish they'd bring back the Trans-Am racing series.

 

Thanks for your post. very well said.

[05GT Guru]

I still dont see whay you had to say that much, i dint disagree with anything in there. I like IRS better to for everyday driving i never said i love live axle for that. The corvette does have IRS because it makes the car handle much better i enver disagreed with that. But for cars i use for straight line racing i prefer live axle, and i know you dont use your cars for that and thats why you like IRS. So where is the dispute? lol

[psi365]

IWSS:

 

Ford did offer IRS in the Mustang through SVT and the Mustang Cobra. IIRC its was on late 99s to 00 or 01. It wasn't well recieved and didn't live up to expectations everyone had on increasing its handling. Ford choose the cheap path at took the rear IRS set up out of a Lincoln MkVIII and just bolted it into a Mustang. For the added wieght the advantage wasn't worth it.

 

I'm not a drag racer. I've done it a few times, but not that great at it. However I do like the stop light drags once in awhile when some guido likes to show off to his guidette how his Iroc Z is the bestest car ev4r. That's what a car like a Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, etc. was built for. Actually a Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, etc isn't a muscle car, they are pony cars.

[IwannaSportSedan]

05GTGuru, Didn't say there was a big dispute with you, other than your use of the word "sports car" as not being expected to handle bumps, and I am not sure whether you have mis-defined your impression of a sports car, or if you simply mis-spoke.

 

I wrote so much, simply because writing is my outlet. I figured everyone here knew I was long-winded.

 

But what most people would think are "straight-line muscle cars", like the Zeta Camaro is shaping up to be, the currently new Challenger, and the now defunct Holden-based GTO, all had IRS, and weren't worse cars for it. I have a fundamental problem with Ford equipping the Mustang without an IRS option.

 

I used to be a huge Mustang FANATIC. Now, not nearly as much. Give me an "under-powered", but lighter weight Porsche Cayman S over a Shelby GT500 any day of the week, and twice on Saturday.

 

Ford did offer IRS in the Mustang through SVT and the Mustang Cobra. IIRC its was on late 99s to 00 or 01. It wasn't well recieved and didn't live up to expectations everyone had on increasing its handling. Ford choose the cheap path at took the rear IRS set up out of a Lincoln MkVIII and just bolted it into a Mustang. For the added wieght the advantage wasn't worth it.

 

I'm not a drag racer. I've done it a few times, but not that great at it. However I do like the stop light drags once in awhile when some guido likes to show off to his guidette how his Iroc Z is the bestest car ev4r. That's what a car like a Challenger, Camaro, Mustang, etc. was built for. Actually a Mustang, Challenger, Camaro, etc isn't a muscle car, they are pony cars.

 

Stop light drags don't really count THAT much. I can smoke most fools who want to beat the unsuspecting red sedan in the other lane, with a turbo 4 cylinder. When 05GTGuru and others talk about straight line racing, I think they are talking about more serious competition, that is planned beforehand, and cars are prepared for.

 

Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro, used to be "pony" cars, mostly by the Mustang's definition of the term, because they were smaller than the full size Torino, Charger, and Chevelle, and other "larger" coupe muscle cars. That was an artifact of the time when there were larger cars than those. Now, there is not that larger class of coupe, and the modern Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro are some of the biggest, heaviest coupes on the market, short of Lux-coupes, like the 6-series or mercedes big coupes. Mustang, Challenger, and Camaro have become the modern muscle car, and are no longer the smaller alternative to anything. The pony has grown into a Clydesdale.

 

The problem with the late SVT cobras, was that it was too little, too late, chassis wise, and it was stupidly promoted. The engine in that car was fantastic by most accounts. The aftermarket for that chassis was well established. Ford tried to market the Cobra as the handling-focused sophistcated sport coupe, but it had two big failings, despite a huge horsepower per dollar ratio.

 

1: Chassis Rigidity of cooked spaghetti. The SN95 chassis was an adaptation of the 1970s-era Fox platform, and was not rigid, even with a coupe roof. All kinds of sub-frame connectors and roll cages, and so-on are required to get that chassis stiff enough to really be effective at either road-course handling, or not twisting under drag-race torque, and slick tires.

 

The people who wanted a sophisticated sport coupe still had to deal with the linguini-stiff chassis, and the old interior. OR they could buy something like a new 350Z or G35, or an E46 3-series, which was a new chassis, a new body with IRS designed into it, and a nicer interior. It was a nice try, but not enough for the sport-car crowd. It was better than the GT, but not necessarily better than it's other competition.

 

2: BIG power engine that drag racers liked. This should have been a bonus, but it turned out that people bought cobras, not for street driving pleasure, but for drag racing, because they had big-power capable supercharged 4-cam engines, and all that needed to be done is turn up the boost.

 

The IRS was never designed for that, and was a bit of a hacked-in solution, anyway, so compromises were made. So all the drag racers complained about the wheel hop, the part breakage, and poor launch characteristics of the IRS on the drag-strip. So, naturally, a LOT of them put live axles back under the car.

 

Ford did not put the big supercharged engine into the GT, with the live axle installed, and didn't put a live-axle option on the big-power SVT Cobra. So drag racers bought the affordable car with the BIG engine, and changed the suspension, which is probably a better choice than putting a big engine AND upgrading the live axle suspension on a GT, as well as all the chassis stiffening that the Mustang needed regardless.

 

Ford should have made a Cobra variant for the drag racers then, with a 9" rear end installed with the supercharged 4-cam 4.6.

 

They got so much bad feedback from the ford-loyal drag racers about that issue, that they went the complete other direction with the S197 chassis for 2005. They could have done it right, and put an IRS into that car, for ALL models, and put an option in the GT for a live axle as a "drag-pack". Instead, after the uproar over the compromised IRS in the Cobra, from the die-hard drag racers, they justified spending less money, and put a live axle under the current mustang, and haven't offered an IRS since, not even on the Shelby GT, and CERTAINLY NOT the GT500, after the SVT Cobra issue. They weren't about to put the 5.4 supercharged V8 into a car without a live axle.

 

But the Bullitt doesn't get IRS. The 4.6 Shelby GT/Hertz doesn't get it, and they haven't brought out anything like a Mach 1 with an IRS, even if they want to leave the main GT with a Live axle. Personally, I think even the V6 base mustang would do better with an IRS, as those are the least likely to be used for drag-racing, and will live almost exclusively on the street.

[05GT Guru]

The only mustang i liked was the 03 04 cobra, it could make a shit ton of power, it was a little heavy at 3700lbs but not the 4200lbs of the new GT500. Personally i miss my T/A miss the feel of a v8 im thinking of putting my supra up for sale to get another F-Body of a 03 cobra. Im tired of turbo lag lol, and if i want it back i will just turbo the v8 car.

[CTlegacy06]

I just saw a rerun of Top Gear (forget which season but it was the one where they did the limo-econo boxes) So they were testing the GT500 and it did a 1:30 around their track. Then they tested the IRS modified Roush (with only 415hp compared to the 500hp of the GT), it did a 1:28. TWO seconds better on an actual road course using the same driver with LESS Horsepower (85crank hp less). Sure it might not wina Drag Race but in everyday driving it probably handles much better. Horsepower wars are pointless if you don't make a proper chassis to handle that power. Thats why most exotics come from Europe while Americans have everything backwards....

[rao]

Comparing a modified car to a stock one and declaring American's stupid is an interesting approach

[05GT Guru]

Lol, the stage 3 rousch is a piece of crap, i have driven it with 415hp, and its 15grand more than a GT for about 5grand in parts. The GT500 is better for many reasons, it has 4 valves for every cylinder the rousch has 3, its a 5.4liter not a 4.6 with just a supercharger upgrade on the GT500 they have seen numbers as high as 700rwhp, stock exhaust just a stage 4 Supercharger and a tune. The GT500 is a 4200lbs car the rousch is 3700lbs 500lbs makes up for the hp lose. I never liked the GT500s, i would go with a 03 04 cobra over it. Rouch anything is a rip off, if you were to buy a Mustang GT stock send it to rousch and have them make it stage 1 which is a body kit, exhaust, cold air intake. They charge 8 grand. The GT500 is a pig with 500hp at 4200lbs good drivers run 12.6s-13flat. I ran 12.6s with a 390hp car. Its not always who has more power who wins.

[CTlegacy06]

Lol, the stage 3 rousch is a piece of crap, i have driven it with 415hp, and its 15grand more than a GT for about 5grand in parts. The GT500 is better for many reasons, it has 4 valves for every cylinder the rousch has 3, its a 5.4liter not a 4.6 with just a supercharger upgrade on the GT500 they have seen numbers as high as 700rwhp, stock exhaust just a stage 4 Supercharger and a tune. The GT500 is a 4200lbs car the rousch is 3700lbs 500lbs makes up for the hp lose. I never liked the GT500s, i would go with a 03 04 cobra over it. Rouch anything is a rip off, if you were to buy a Mustang GT stock send it to rousch and have them make it stage 1 which is a body kit, exhaust, cold air intake. They charge 8 grand. The GT500 is a pig with 500hp at 4200lbs good drivers run 12.6s-13flat. I ran 12.6s with a 390hp car. Its not always who has more power who wins.

True, I could care less about the bodykit and bells in whistles Rousch tack on to make their bill higher but I'm mainly talking about their suspension set up, which is obviously better than any stock Ford suspension for the Mustang. Why doesn't Ford make themselves a decent IRS? Then they could apply that same platform/suspension to more luxury sedans (something Lincoln). The last time I've heard of a great handling Ford was back with the Cosworth... since then they've focused their "sporty" lines on big heavy dragsters.

[Mitch]

Cosworth Ford? What? Were you living in Europe?

[05GT Guru]

The IRS in the stangs isnt that bad but you also have to remember these parts they put in those cars from factory have to be tough enough to handle 500hp and still warrenty it. There main concern on rear end setups was comfort and reliability 500hp aitn not joke when you need to put a warrenty on it, 500hp can break things left and right.

[IwannaSportSedan]

This may be off topic to the Challenger, but before I would buy a new Challenger SRT8, new Shelby GT500, or even a future Camaro SS,

 

I would buy an 83-86 Fox Capri t-roof shell. (love the flared fenders)

Full bare-shell re-build, with the whole chassis worked over for stiffening. Integrated roll cage/chassis reinforcement welded in, subframe connectors, the whole works. Even clearanced rear wheel wells for wide modern wheels.

SLA front suspension conversion, with tubular k-member, setup for a modular V8.

modified and fortified 03-04 Cobra IRS sub-assembly.

Big brakes with 5-bolt hubs.

tuned or possibly turbocharged 5.0 4-cam crate engine.

6-speed manual transmission, limited slip diff.

FR500 staggered 18" wheels and tires.

87-93 style mustang interior.

84-86 Capri front fenders (again, flared fenders on the Capri, different than Mustang's arched fenders)

85-86 Mustang hood and front bumper cover, hatchback, and SVO/Cobra tail lights, 93 Cobra rear bumper cover. 87-93 Mustang GT hatchback spoiler.

 

But then, for that kind of money, I could probably have a very nice Porsche 944 Turbo, or even possibly turbocharge a Porsche 968. Or a 2nd gen turbo MR2 t-top coupe with suspension upgrades. Or an STI-conversion Subaru 2.5RS Coupe.

 

What to do, what to do.

 

And to be honest, I think those older, less expensive cars might even be more fun to wrench on and work with than buying a brand new car, and worry about insuring it and making more than 40K worth of car payments on...

[CTlegacy06]

Cosworth Ford? What? Were you living in Europe?

I visit family there every couple yrs.

 

I guess I forgot the fact that Ford Europe makes far superior quality vehicles than the Ford here. My bad. A majority of my family there owns Fords.

 

This is exactly why the Japanese/German companies are gaining a very large stronghold on sports cars in America. They know that most people want a car that is fast in the corners. It seems that the Big 3 Missed the boat completely on that and now are suffering for it.

 

Sure warranty is an issue but if Germans and Japanese companies can make IRS handle big hp why can't Ford?

[05GT Guru]

This may be off topic to the Challenger, but before I would buy a new Challenger SRT8, new Shelby GT500, or even a future Camaro SS,

 

I would buy an 83-86 Fox Capri t-roof shell. (love the flared fenders)

Full bare-shell re-build, with the whole chassis worked over for stiffening. Integrated roll cage/chassis reinforcement welded in, subframe connectors, the whole works. Even clearanced rear wheel wells for wide modern wheels.

SLA front suspension conversion, with tubular k-member, setup for a modular V8.

modified and fortified 03-04 Cobra IRS sub-assembly.

Big brakes with 5-bolt hubs.

tuned or possibly turbocharged 5.0 4-cam crate engine.

6-speed manual transmission, limited slip diff.

FR500 staggered 18" wheels and tires.

87-93 style mustang interior.

84-86 Capri front fenders (again, flared fenders on the Capri, different than Mustang's arched fenders)

85-86 Mustang hood and front bumper cover, hatchback, and SVO/Cobra tail lights, 93 Cobra rear bumper cover. 87-93 Mustang GT hatchback spoiler.

 

But then, for that kind of money, I could probably have a very nice Porsche 944 Turbo, or even possibly turbocharge a Porsche 968. Or a 2nd gen turbo MR2 t-top coupe with suspension upgrades. Or an STI-conversion Subaru 2.5RS Coupe.

 

What to do, what to do.

 

And to be honest, I think those older, less expensive cars might even be more fun to wrench on and work with than buying a brand new car, and worry about insuring it and making more than 40K worth of car payments on...

 

Fox bodys can be made fast for cheap money, but they are so ugly and common which is why the cars themselves and there parts are cheap. My cousin has a 76trim on his 91 lx with a stand alone and built 302 it makes 622rwhp but i still think the car is ugly. Even with new paint, rims ground effects and big intercooler you can see through the grill. And if i were you i would just stick with the pushrod 5.0, the 4 cam is a hundred pounds heavier thanks to the huge heads and they dont really make anymore power than a built pushrod 5.0.

[NewLegGT67]

I didn't take a whole lot of pics last night, but here are the 3 I took of the new Challenger. The files are kind of big so here are the links:

 

http://cycle-planet.com/chris/DC2.JPG

 

http://cycle-planet.com/chris/DC1.JPG

 

http://cycle-planet.com/chris/DC3.JPG

 

I the Challenger in black.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I want something different.

 

I had an 88 Fox mustang 4-cyl as my first car, which I bought in high school, and paid off early. it was completely anemic, but it was mine, and it went a LONG time.

 

I am kinda sick of the aero-nose mustangs (87-93) but i still kind of like the 85-86 GTs, with the sealed-beam headlights, and the pointed wedge-shaped front cover, and minimum side cladding and stuff. The 87-93 GTs were almost as bad as 90's pontiacs when it came to too much plastic cladding.

 

I know small block fords are highly tuneable, but I think it is a cool thing to be able to get a modern engine, and still being able to put a 5.0 badge on the side. I wouldn't be competing with such a car anyway, so a hundred pounds isn't a killer, although it isn't exactly the place to be adding weight in that chassis.

 

It is kind of odd. I think 80's mustangs look more interesting than 80's f-bodies. But in the 90's I kind of go the other way, and like the sleek firebird more than the 94-04 Mustangs.

 

If I were to build such Fox Mercury Capri, it would mostly be for weekend drives, car shows, and just my own personal enjoyment. I doubt I would build it for racing, or really race it, other than a bit of toying with people at a stop light, which is on the border line of inappropriate for me. Maybe an SCCA Autocross event, or something, just to test my own driving.

 

I certainly am not going to go with 05GTGuru to his local race meets.

[BoxerGT2.5]

^^^You may have only 3,777 posts, but I'd bet my ass you blow Hanger out of the water on the sheer number of total words posted.

[05GT Guru]

I want something different.

 

I had an 88 Fox mustang 4-cyl as my first car, which I bought in high school, and paid off early. it was completely anemic, but it was mine, and it went a LONG time.

 

I am kinda sick of the aero-nose mustangs (87-93) but i still kind of like the 85-86 GTs, with the sealed-beam headlights, and the pointed wedge-shaped front cover, and minimum side cladding and stuff. The 87-93 GTs were almost as bad as 90's pontiacs when it came to too much plastic cladding.

 

I know small block fords are highly tuneable, but I think it is a cool thing to be able to get a modern engine, and still being able to put a 5.0 badge on the side. I wouldn't be competing with such a car anyway, so a hundred pounds isn't a killer, although it isn't exactly the place to be adding weight in that chassis.

 

It is kind of odd. I think 80's mustangs look more interesting than 80's f-bodies. But in the 90's I kind of go the other way, and like the sleek firebird more than the 94-04 Mustangs.

 

If I were to build such Fox Mercury Capri, it would mostly be for weekend drives, car shows, and just my own personal enjoyment. I doubt I would build it for racing, or really race it, other than a bit of toying with people at a stop light, which is on the border line of inappropriate for me. Maybe an SCCA Autocross event, or something, just to test my own driving.

 

I certainly am not going to go with 05GTGuru to his local race meets.

 

Aw why dont you wanna come with me, im sure you would have a good time