I guess we should put our money where our mouth is...

mazdeuce wrote: The problem isn't so much that they don't offer a strippy package, it's that you have to order packages in the first place. If they'd let someone odrer the base car, biggest Hemi, big brakes, best suspension, then this 'package' would be irrelivent. Do away with packages all together and let me order what I want.

That's essentially how MINI does it. Or more accurately - used to do it - they've slowly eroded the ability to a la cart option a car to be exactly how you want it, although it's still better than most. The problem with this flexibility is it adds to the build time and thus overall costs. MINI's are pretty much most expensive cars in their class for this reason and over the years they've eliminated a number of the less popular a la cart options in an effort to reduce costs and increase profits.

aussiesmg wrote: God I hope Ford are listening, 2015 Mustang Clubsport.... I will buy that

You've always been able to order stripped down, cloth seat GT mustangs. They may not show up on dealer lots but if you want a bare bones car with the trac pack it can be had. At nearly a half ton lighter than the dodge.

Curb weight specs are all over the map. The one I used was through Yahoo Autos, the next site will have another spec, the next one yet another.

I just looked at the cert label for a V6 Challenger here in the shop,. the GVWR is 5300 pounds which includes the passengers, fuel, all fluids etc. The gross load capacity is 975 pounds, subtract that from 5300 pounds and that leaves 4325 pounds. Remember that's a V6 car, not a SRT V8.

Correction: I read the loading sticker wrong, the max load is 865 pounds, not 975. That makes the curb weight on this V6 car 4435 pounds, not 4325.

unevolved wrote: Here's a picture of one next to an NSX for perspective. It's not a small car:

Is the NSX the automotive equivalent of Rhode Island? This is not the first time I've seen it used to gauge a vehicle's size.

I don't know, but I certainly don't mind seeing pictures of it.

I am not sure I would want steelies. They are heavy, kinda ugly, and they flex. Aluminum rims are lighter and stiffer.

Maybe something like VW puts on the beetle? Aluminum rim with chrome hubcap?

In reply to Knurled:

One douche just had to ruin that picture with his flat black barge.

Approved:

I don't understand the whole reason behind flat black. The "racer" kids are still doing that to their Hondas and nissans around here.. and it is like painting a target on your car for the police to pull you over

Great, now if they could do a "Core" Dart SRT-4 ACR, I'd be lining up with dollars in hand.

Here's the standard GRM size comparison.

They need to reduce weight on dat ass. Baby got back.

mad_machine wrote: I don't understand the whole reason behind flat black. The "racer" kids are still doing that to their Hondas and nissans around here.. and it is like painting a target on your car for the police to pull you over

If its good enough for the SR-71, Its good enough for me.

In reply to irish44j:

DAT AZZ.........is HUGE!

Mazda did that for the RX8 R3. no auto lights, no auto climate control, non-electric seats, no sunroof, no seat heaters, no nav, no luxo stuff, but recaro seats, forged wheels, added chassis stiffening, etc...

I don't know how well they did vs. the normal RX8 because nobody was buying either! Except me. Since they weren't selling I got mine with like $6k in rebates and more off because the dealership was sick of it taking up space in their showroom for so long. If Ford came out with a stripped down mustang, though, that might be extremely tempting.

Also it's good they didn't go all porsche and double the price just because there's less stuff on it!

Hmm. I was sooooooo excited about the challenger when it was coming out. I was almost ready to call myself a dodge guy. Then I saw it in person. IT WAS HUGE. It's a nice vehicle for cross country driving or leisurely sunday cruises to Old Country Buffet, much like a mid seventies Cadillac. I just don't think there's a whole lot Chrysler can do to make the current platform appealing.

Maybe, they could release a 3/4 scale version of it. Yeah, that'd be cool.

But because it's a big and heavy pig, I probably wouldn't bother with a "de-contented" version of the car. I like leather.

I agree.

Is the NSX the automotive equivalent of Rhode Island? This is not the first time I've seen it used to gauge a vehicle's size.

No, the GT-R is just ALSO a giant fatty. And it has the same problem as the Challenger: Too tall. They both look like they're wearing an extra 6" of height at the bottom of the body.

That's why black is a bad color on both Challengers and GT-Rs: You cant paint a strip of black on the bottom of the car to visually 'shrink' the excessive height if the whole thing is black.

Vigo wrote: And it has the same problem as the Challenger: Too tall. They both look like they're wearing an extra 6" of height at the bottom of the body.

Get used to it. Beltlines are going up and up and up. Thank pedestrian crash standards for that.

The new Challenger (and Charger for that matter) are up there on the lustworthy list for me. They are big, roomy, and comfortable cars that look awesome and manly, and would make a great highway bomber.

As an all-out performance vehicle, there are better choices though. They are heavy and huge!

And I second that they should have done this with the base R/T.

Also, the new Camaro completely misses the mark. I don't fit in them, which is inexcusable. My head hits the roof unless I employ the "gangsta-lean" seating position. That is stupid, especially since they are so damn big.

mad_machine wrote: I don't understand the whole reason behind flat black. The "racer" kids are still doing that to their Hondas and nissans around here.. and it is like painting a target on your car for the police to pull you over

I did it on my tow rig and another one of my cars before it became cool, but there was a reason behind it. Both vehicles were originally gloss balck but in need of a repaint and both had imperfections in the body. I didn't have the time/desire to do a ton of bodywork on either, so painted them both matte black, which really helps hide the imperfections.

I love how the sports car guys get off on insulting the car for being big. I DD'd a 740iL. A Challenger would be just fine. It's not as big as the full size pickup trucks many drive regularly.

It was never supposed to be a sports car. It was always a musclecar, a big, heavy, bruiser of a car. And I love it for that. I want a Plum Crazy hemi R/T...

Sometimes i wish I could afford to own all the cars I want at the same time...

mad_machine wrote: I don't understand the whole reason behind flat black.

'cause some of us like it. That's all the reason it needs to have to exist.

mad_machine wrote: I am not sure I would want steelies. They are heavy, kinda ugly, and they flex. Aluminum rims are lighter and stiffer.

Alloys are not necessarily light, many OE alloys are heavier than the steelie, especially if they're cast.

gofastbobby wrote: Hmm. I was sooooooo excited about the challenger when it was coming out. I was almost ready to call myself a dodge guy. Then I saw it in person. IT WAS HUGE. It's a nice vehicle for cross country driving or leisurely sunday cruises to Old Country Buffet, much like a mid seventies Cadillac. I just don't think there's a whole lot Chrysler can do to make the current platform appealing. Maybe, they could release a 3/4 scale version of it. Yeah, that'd be cool.

When was the last time you saw an original? They aren't exactly small cars.

1970 Challenger Hemi 4 Spd: (1)
weight - 3801 lbs
length - 191.5 in
width - 76.5 in
height - 51.0 in

2014 Challenger SRT: (2)
Curb Weight, lb. - Est. 4,253 (manual)
Overall Length - 197.7 in
Overall Width 75.7 in
Overall Height 57.1 in

Yes, the new car is substantially heavier, but given the requirements of a modern car that's not unexpected. But the 6" difference in length and height is not unreasonable. At least the writer in the OP article commented about how big the car feels inside. How many "big" cars have we been inside that seem cramped?

(1) http://auto-specs.zercustoms.com/d/dodge/1970-dodge-challenger-r-t-specifications.html

(2) http://www.drivesrt.com/2014/challenger-srt/ Vehicle Specifications download link at the bttom of the page

Chris_V wrote: I love how the sports car guys get off on insulting the car for being big. I DD'd a 740iL. A Challenger would be just fine. It's not as big as the full size pickup trucks many drive regularly.

Agreed, I DD an econoline, not too many cars get that big. OTOH it also seats 7 and can hold 12' boards. When a challenger can do that I'll understand when it's insanely heavy. OTOH I do remember checking out the trunk on one of those things, it looked pretty massive. you couldn't fit a 12' board in there but i bet you could get 7+ people in the car if you cram a few in that luxuriously huge trunk.