18th Sep 2008, 08:38
No, the Challenger RT, not the SRT8. I know they are marking those up by like 30%... The RT may have a premium on it for the short term, but they will soon be marking them down as they will be much more available than the SRT8 version. Better to wait for the second year (2010 on the RT) anyhow so the bugs are all worked out. You get a 6 speed 375 hp hemi for much less than your overblown $50K Mustang and it looks 10 times better too.
I just can't see spending $50K on a new Mustang so it'll depreciate like a stone sinking in water... Better off with a BMW M3 at that point. At least it'll be worth something down the road.
18th Sep 2008, 10:21
Mustang values "sinking like a rock"??? Apparently the commenter hasn't priced any used Mustangs lately.
18th Sep 2008, 19:11
The Challenger R/T is far too heavy to be a challenge to the Mustang GT. 0-60 in 6 seconds on a good day for the Dodge.
Although V8's are becoming unpopular, the Mustang GT has a strong foothold and cult following, and hasn't come and left, and tried to come back like the GTO, Camaro, and Challenger.
21st Sep 2008, 19:02
The Challenger R/T will make it to 60 in about the same time as the Mustang (5.1 or 5.2), since it out powers it by like 75 hp. and over 100 lb. ft. of torque. The SRT8 is hitting 60 in like 4.8 seconds.
Either way, Dodge nailed the whole retro thing way better than Ford did on the Mustang.
I love the Mustang too, but I really think the Challenger would be the better car to own, having driven multiple Hemi cars on the similar Charger and Magnum platforms.
22nd Sep 2008, 10:22
The Challenger has done a great job of capturing the look of the older Challengers. It remains to be seen how it will sell. I only know two people who have bought them, and both chose the V-6. I don't see huge sales for the V-8 in this economy.
7th Oct 2008, 20:11
Funny thing is the V-8 is rated at only 1 mpg less than the V-6 for highway driving (25 vs. 26 mpg.) on the Challenger. I would opt for the added power and performance for only that much of a loss. 5 or 6 mpg is one thing, but I could live with 1. I know a couple of people with Hemi Chargers, and they are getting around 24 mpg with the automatic.
17th Mar 2009, 11:15
Challenger R/T is too heavy to compete with Mustang GT. Even with 90 hp advantage you'll be happy to hit 0-60 mph in 6 sec. Mustang, with 90 hp less, does it in 4.9 sec. Challenger weights over 3,900 lbs which is too much even for a full size car.
Heck, even Challenger SRT-8 is nothing special. 425 hp and 0-60 mph in 4.8 sec? Put it on the line against Shelby GT500.
And there is no way that Challenger is more popular than Mustang. Sure, Challenger looks good, but it will never have popularity that 2005 had when it was introduced.
17th Mar 2009, 21:38
I have to agree that the Challenger (and Camaro) will never be a threat to the Mustang. More and more people care less and less about the "bragging rights" that come with a V-8.
I traded my last V-8 Mustang in 2003 and recently opted for the 4.0 V-6, which is rated at 15 horsepower MORE than my old 5.0, gets nearly twice the mileage and saves me 40% on my insurance. My last two V-8 Mustangs were nowhere near as comfortable or as FAST as my current V-6, so I don't feel I've given up anything.
You can't even use the full potential of a 4-cylinder Fusion LEGALLY, and just being able to say "I have a V-8!!" no longer impresses people. For that reason I doubt the Challenger (or Camaro) would outsell the Mustang even if it DID do 0-60 in 4 seconds.
People are (THANKFULLY)becoming less enamored with ridiculously powerful engines whose potential can only be used on a private race course.
24th Mar 2009, 20:12
Which 5.0 did you have that was rated at 195 HP? Your 4.0 is 210 right?
My last 5.0 was 225 HP, but the big difference was in the torque rating and it would outrun even the newest 6 cylinder. It was 1/2 second quicker to 60.
Mustangs are all about the V-8 as they put all the performance goods on the GT models like the handling packages, bigger wheels, nicer interiors, etc.
I see some people's point about getting the look instead of the performance, but to claim that people aren't into performance and high horsepower is kind of short sighted. Why, if that is true, do they continually increase the power on every car across the board. Even sedans like the Accord and Maxima are nearing the 300 HP mark, never mind the 400 HP G8. Seems to me the interest in high HP engines is going stronger than ever... What isn't really strong is the musclecar market.
You are correct in your assumption that the Mustang will continue to outsell the new Camaro and Challenger. Mustangs have always had a strong following, and Ford has always marketed them better than than the competition with better lease deals and such, which is why they continually dominate the marketplace. Even when the Camaro was far superior in performance, the Mustang outsold it three to one. Of course, the Challenger and the Camaro are going to be much more limited in production this time around, so the numbers won't ever be able to match the production of the Mustang, which is now in it's 5th year of the new body style.
To me the V-8 is part of the package, though, and the gas mileage is close enough to justify the added performance. I was averaging around 27 mpg with both of my old 5.0 Mustangs, so I can only imagine the newer 4.6 would do the same or better.
26th Mar 2009, 10:27
"Which 5.0 did you have that was rated at 195 HP? Your 4.0 is 210 right?"
The 5.0 was rated at 205 hp. My 4.0 is mildly modified and produces between 220-225. And yes, I've heard the new 4.6 gets decent mileage, but after dealing with the disastrous 11-15mpg in my 5.0 I wasn't inclined to try another V-8. Fuel prices WON'T stay at less than $2 a gallon for long. They're already on the way up.
I could drive an AMG Mercedes if I chose to. I don't. If the power in a vehicle can't be used anywhere other than a private race course, why spend thousands more to have something you can't use? All 4 of our present vehicles have the smallest engines that were available. All 4 of them are MORE than adequate to deal with any traffic situation. Why do I need more??
26th Mar 2009, 11:32
Apparently you haven't either. Used Mustangs are so prevalent in the marketplace they go for about 60% of their original value at less than two years old. The only cars that hold their value are the Shelby cars. The price of popularity, but factual none-the-less. When supply exceeds demand how can the value hold up?
26th Mar 2009, 20:41
The only year the 5.0 was 205 HP was 1993 and that was due to a rating system change. It was actually the same as the 225 HP 5.0's back to 1987. If you were getting 11-15 mpg with a fuel injected 5.0 you had MAJOR problems with it. Like I said both of mine '88 and '90 got an average of 27mpg highway and maybe 18-22 for city. NEVER did they burn that much gas. What are you getting... maybe 24 with the V-6? I'd rather have the performance. You can have fun with a V-8 on the road if you aren't stupid about it. And like I said (again) most sedans offer a higher HP engine than the Mustang V-8 these days. I applaud your sense of restraint though as most people who own high HP cars aren't fit to drive them. Nice to see a sensible driver once in awhile. I also have a 4 cylinder car as it is more than adequate for my daily commute... but if I were to ever get another Mustang, it would be a V-8 or I would get something better. There are many better options for sporty cars out there that will outperform the Mustang V-6 by a long shot and I am not talking speed only. I also highly doubt you could be tooling around in a $100K+ Mercedes and you chose a Mustang instead.