By on April 30, 2010

One of the strangest phenomena of the revived retro muscle car wars is the renewed emphasis on V6 performance. Once derided as “Secretary Specials,” the V6 versions of the Ford Mustang and Chevy Camaro now make upwards of 300 horsepower, while earning EPA highway ratings that surpass the 30 MPG mark. But if these latter-day pony cars herald a new era of performance and practicality, the V6-powered Dodge Challenger is as retro as its 1970-again styling.

The Challenger has always been the third wheel in the pony car wars: a little too heavy, a little too big, and a little too late to the game. Sure, the maddest of the mad versions were fire-breathing beasts, but the Challenger never wormed its way into the American psyche the way the lither, more sporty Camaro and Mustang did. And with all three nameplates back in showrooms, the old relationship remains the same: the 6.1 liter SRT-8 Challenger may give up nothing to its perennial rivals, but the volume SE version comes up well short of the competition.

Of course, what the modern Challenger might lack in emotional capital, it more than makes up for in sheer retro, street-level appeal. Even without Hemi badges, the Challenger looks big, mean and slick, by far the most retro of the modern pony car designs, and to this reviewer’s eyes, the most clean and pleasing as well. And it doesn’t just look good, it looks right. It’s a long car, but it’s got a vertical heft to it that balances the design. And with its classic lines and proportions executed in thick modern body panels, the Challenger looks as much like an expensive toy model grown to street size as anything else.

From outside the Challenger’s deceptively large cabin, it seems like nothing could break the spell cast by the car’s sheer presence. At least until the driver sticks the Challenger’s plastic key fob into the appropriate receptacle and turns it, kicking the old 3.5 liter SOHC V6 to life with all the drama of a Grand Caravan. At this point, the observer of this unremarkable process is likely to come down with a bad case of cognitive dissonance: the eyes tell you to expect the lumpy loping of big V8, but all the ears hear are, well, almost nothing.  With a stab of the throttle, the muted tickover rises to a tremulous drone. With enough motivation, the engine eventually manages to sound blustery, but it’s never in danger of making a sound that’s in the least bit purposeful.

Nor, given the performance numbers, should it. With a mere 250 horsepower and 250 lb-ft of torque on tap, it’s a good 50 ponies and about 25 lb-ft short of its V6 adversaries. And with 3,720 lbs of retro coupe to carry around, the old V6 has its work cut out for it. Luckily, the five-speed automatic is well-calibrated for the task, flattering the Challenger’s weak on-paper numbers with easy-to-use real-world performance. First gear is short enough to give the Challenger just enough pop from the traffic lights to keep it from being a complete embarrassment, but it’s also long enough to keep things from becoming a thrash-fest. Just don’t expect those rear tires to emit even the softest chirrup, unless you’re turning from a stop on a horrendously-paved road. While treating the gas pedal like it’s a particularly resilient cockroach.

In fact, if you’re even remotely interested in performance or fun, look elsewhere. Though the steering is only slightly overboosted, the Challenger’s weight makes it a clumsy dancer, and without the brute force needed to manhandle its softly-sprung chassis, you quickly settle into cruising mode. On suburban side streets, it glides sedately and uses its power well. On the freeway, it accelerates acceptably before running out of useable puff at relatively low (although still illegal) speeds. A sideways bump on the transmission’s autostick drops the Mopar back into its powerband more rapidly than pedalwork alone, but there’s still a palpable pause as your order makes its way to the engine room. Long, sweeping turns at higher speeds are as close as the Challenger gets to a driving thrill, but with so much weight, and so little steering feel, it’s got one of the fastest boredom-to-fear times in the business.

What we have then, in the Challenger SE, is a big, retro cruiser. It’s quiet and refined at freeway speeds, and it’s got enough power to keep up with the rest of the commuters. And shockingly for a Chrysler product, the interior is even a fairly inoffensive place to spend time. Though it lacks the retro flair promised by its exterior and competitors alike, its a clean design with simple functionality and relatively high-quality components… for a Chrysler. We could nitpick a few plastics choices, the lack of mirrors on the sun visors and more, but as stripped, sub-$25k Chrysler Group products go, it’s a revelation. Only the large, cheap and nasty steering wheel is truly offensive.

Unlike the more musclebound V6 pony car competition, the Challenger offers real-world rear seating. Wedge five people (including three six-footers) into a Camaro or Mustang, and after 45 minutes at least three of them will need either a chiropractor, a relationship counselor, or both. Thanks to the Challenger’s lengthy LX underpinnings, the same five people will make the same trip in relative luxury. In fact, the only professional assistance a passenger might need is seasonal affective disorder therapy: spacious though it may be, the rear seat is still a lightless bunker, with little visibility anywhere.

And though poor visibility as a result of bold styling is a nearly universal problem affecting nearly every car on the market, in this case it creates a special disadvantage. After all, this particular Challenger was a rental, and the SE’s lack of performance credentials vis-a-vis its rivals seems to doom this model to heavy rental-fleet service. The problem is that, having arrived at one’s destination and made the questionable decision to splash out for a “fancy” rental, the last thing one wants to find out is that famous landmarks are only barely visible out of the Challenger’s gun-slit windows. Want to see more than the bottom third of the Washington monument as you drive by? Be prepared to hang half your body out the window. Want the kids to enjoy a memorable back-seat tour of their nation’s capitol? Rent the Mustang convertible instead.

So, if this Challenger fails as a performance car, a musclebound cruiser and a rental, what is it good for? How about a better-looking Solara or Accord Coupe? From the cabin it’s not that hard to forget that it’s rear-drive, or related to anything with a Hemi, but from the outside it’s pure retro confection. You just won’t be getting the efficiency or reliability of the Japanese snooze-coupes. But when Chrysler’s new “Pentastar” V6 comes out, it should offer close enough to 300 horsepower to make it feel a little less like an afterthought to the Camaro and Mustang… at least on paper. In the meantime, unless you can’t live without its looks but can’t afford a Hemi, look elsewhere.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “Review: Dodge Challenger SE...”


  • avatar

    Haven’t driven one of these yet. Have driven a Charger and a 300 with this engine in the past. Pretty much as described.

    TrueDelta doesn’t track the reliability of the Challenger–too few signed up. Early indications were that the Challenger was going to use a heavily modified LX platform, so I haven’t been including them in the LX sample. But perhaps the differences aren’t that large after all?

    All years of the LX sedans are riding the line between “average” and “better than average” — not too shabby.

    http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Chrysler&mc=65

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      My folks have a 300 Limited with this same powertrain and they are quite happy with it. It’s been dead solid reliable other than a leaky transmission wiring connector o-ring, a known issue that Mercedes suffered from as well with their version of the W5A580 transmission. On top of that, it gets 29-30 MPG on the highway when driven at sane (read: speed limit or just slightly below – my folks are 70+, what do you expect?) speeds…not too shabby for a 4000 lb. car…

    • 0 avatar
      thatsiebguy

      I had an ’05 3.5 V6 Magnum SXT for a couple years. Even at 4200lbs, the 250 horses fit it well, and the difference compared to the 2.7 was noticeable. It would scoot when you wanted it to and looked good doing it, and did it well mannered. It was a good car around town, and a nice ride on the interstate. Sadly, I didn’t care for the lack of MPG compared to the MDS equipped V8s. Overall, I plan on getting another one again, though probably a ’09 V8 model as it fixed a lot of the qualms I had with the ’05.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m gonna contribute to True Delta.

      My 300 (and my friend’s ) seem to have a problem wearing out the right passenger side tire rod arms.
      Other than that, the car is solid.

      I’ve never had a problem with oil leaking or any other problem with oil – that I’ve heard other people talk about.

      As for interior space, I think the 300, charger and Challenger are the largest front/back interiors on the road. The only car I’ve been in with a larger interior is my S550. The Maxima and Camry come close though – but no cigar.

      As for Engine power, anything else but SRT8 is A JOKE.
      http://www.epinions.com/content_461382913668

    • 0 avatar
      lawstud

      Flashpoint –> Just the facts Chrysler 300 is right up there with legroom and interior volume, but the G8 takes the interior volume and the Avalon beats it in front and rear legroom. I’m sure it feels to be number one when only the defunct G8 beats it with horsepower for an affordable large sedan.

      Interior volume
      Pontiac G8 interior volume 124 cu.ft.
      Chrysler 300C interior volume 107 cu.ft.
      Toyota Avalon interior volume 107 cu.ft.
      Toyota Avalon interior volume 107 cu.ft.

      Front Seat + Back Seat Legroom:
      Pontiac G8 81.6″
      Hyundai Azera 81.9″
      Chrysler 300C 82.0″
      Toyota Avalon 82.2″

  • avatar
    BDB

    The v6 Challenger is pretty much the 2010 version of the early ’90s V6 Thunderbirds. A big, stylish RWD cruiser coupe that won’t set the world on fire with its performance.

  • avatar

    I agree wholeheartedly about the styling.

    The Challenger is the best looking of the three, bar none. The V8 versions also have an unrivaled cool factor to them that for me it above the Camaro and Mustang. They also perform well enough to get most of the population in trouble (or put into a pole or wall). I even like the interior.

    All that said, they shouldn’t have bothered with the V6. The new Pentastar V6 will be welcomed. So will the big 392 HEMI crate motor when Chrysler makes that standard on the SRT8.

  • avatar
    Dr. Nguyen Van Falk

    This car sucks in all iterations. Chrysler can’t buy a clue or make a decent car. The only thing this bloated beast accomplishes is making a mean engine note in its insanely overpriced and under performing SRT-8 trim. Sorry Chryco, but if I’m dropping well over $40k on an American V8 coupe, it’s going to the Corvette. That is a car with performance cred, functionality, and decent road manners. If I just want a beastly straight-line-only look-at-me noise maker, I’ll get last year’s Shelby Mustang. This car sucks. Chrysler sucks. Fade away you garbage manufacturers. They even screwed up the Jeep Cherokee and Jeep Wrangler. How can you do this unless you’re making a concerted effort to be the worst?

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      The Vette does have performance cred over the Challenger, but not functionality or road manners.

    • 0 avatar

      You almost had me there until the Wrangler part. After seeng modern Wrangler on the trail I understood that it is not at all screwed.

    • 0 avatar

      So much venom towards a car-you’d think this Chally ranks up there in infamy with the Kennedy Lincoln and the Hitler Mercedes.

    • 0 avatar
      AJ

      I also disagree about the JK Wrangler. Jeep did a very nice job on it. The JK Rubicon is bare none the best stock 4×4 on the market, and truthfully better then the TJ Rubicon. Which is really amazing as if Jeeep had listened to the typical new car media, it would have ended up like the Cherokee to the Liberty as a street cruising Jeep.

      Plus, I’d still take any Challenger over a Mustang.

  • avatar
    shortthrowsixspeed

    wow, this sounds horrendous. If the best it gives is rear seating, it’s a total bust. imagine the size of the demographic seeking a retro coupe with a really usable back seat . . . sheesh.

    i cannot agree about the styling here. I’ve grown to like the mustang, but the camaro and challenger are simply too big. especially the challenger. everytime I see one i’m taken aback by how wide it is. It looks like it’s lumbering along. also, i did a quick walkaround of one in a parking lot once and the panel gaps were all over the place bad.

    lastly a crappy steering wheel is a dealbreaker for me. it’s the one thing i’m gonna see and feel everytime i get in the car. most all makers should put more time and effort into the tiller.

  • avatar
    Ion

    The Solara and “better looking” don’t belong in the same sentance.

  • avatar
    tced2

    A casualty of the DiamlerChrysler and Cerebus managements – at least DiamlerChrysler developed the Challenger. The engine is basically the same engine that first appeared in the 1999 300M (a decent engine in its time). Diamler didn’t “develop” any new engine in the Challenger introduction timeframe. The Camaro and Mustang have more modern engines. There is a new engine – Pentastar V6 – that promises to be more competitive. When it will appear in the Challenger is not announced.

    (@shorthrowsixspeed, The original Challenger was a very wide car)

    • 0 avatar
      shortthrowsixspeed

      understood. and i don’t really like how the original looked either. but on this car, in addition to the broad stance (accentuated by the black bar grill and horizontal taillight structure), the rear 1/3 of the car looks completely out of proportion with the front 2/3s. I get the need to put “athletic haunches” at the rear wheels, but the high trunk deck, massive space from trunk to bumper on the rear quarter panels, and thick c pillar make the two parts appear to be from different cars. all in all, i’m just not a fan.

  • avatar
    ajla

    You really weren’t able to even chirp the tires from a stop?

    The motor makes 250ft-lbs of torque at 3800RPM and it has narrow 215mm all-season tires. With those stats, at least some noise should occur if you punch it.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      Does the SE come standard with ESC?

    • 0 avatar
      Wagen

      Surprisingly, yes, the SE does come with ESC as standard equipment. Which is better than I can say for the base models of its (granted, less sporting-intended) brethren the Charger and Chrysler 300 who lack not only ESP but also ABS as standard equipment. Two of very few full-size models to lack this most basic safety feature. After driving a few of said vehicles as rental cars (the rental companies usually place even the base models in their “premium” category, between full-size and luxury – ha!), I can tell you that I know intimately how the lack of ABS has contributed to these cars having “one of the fastest boredom-to-fear times in the business.” I now check for an ABS light to be illuminated during the startup self-test when I have the misfortune of getting one of these as a rental and refuse it if there is none. I could maybe see the lack of ESP on those as trying to be true to whatever semblance of DNA may be shared with the Viper, but lack of ABS? Come on…

  • avatar
    ktm

    Every time I am behind one, I can only think of a “fatman on tippy-toes”. Its proportions are all wrong; while it may be wide it also rather tall. Its predecessor was low-slung and looked like it meant business. This is the Fat Elvis equivalent.

  • avatar

    Ion: You see what I did there? What buyer that would even consider the Solara cares enough about looks to think seriously about the Challenger?
    ajla: The torque peaks at 3,800 RPM, the first gear is fairly tall and then there’s all the weight. Granted I didn’t go crazy with both feet trying to get the tires unstuck, but I sure did floor it from stop and it didn’t make a squeak.
    educatordan: yes

    • 0 avatar
      Ion

      I guess, but now I’m wondering how many people cross-shop the Solara and the Sebring. The main appeal of them is the drop top and I can’t say I see many of either around.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    A agree with pretty much everything in the review. The Challenger looks great, but beyond that and the back seat, it doesn’t have a lot going for it.

    I wonder how much of the visual panache comes from the relatively low sales of the Challenger vs the Mustang and the Camaro though, the more common something is, no matter how good it looks, the less interesting it is. For every Challenger I see on the road I see at least three or four Camaros, and probably nine or ten Mustangs.

    EDIT –

    Just to say, think of how great a car could be made if they let Ford do the chassis/suspension tuning, electronics, and interior, GM do the powertrain, and Chrysler do the exterior styling and bodywork.

    • 0 avatar
      BDB

      What would be great is if Ford brought back the Thunderbird name, but make it essentially a coupe version of the Taurus SHO. That could be a real niche hit. When’s the last time we had a full-size, American, personal coupe? 2002? And that was the lackluster El Dorado (er, “ETC”). The new Thunderbird would also show off modern styling rather than trying to be some copy of a car done 40 years ago. Just subtract two doors, make the roofline sleeker, and switch out the blue oval for the old T-Bird emblem.

      Or make a coupe version of the MKS w/ ecoboost and call it the Mark IX. Hey, I can dream!

    • 0 avatar
      golden2husky

      I really wanted a T-Bird Turbo Coupe back in the day…Ford was on a roll back then. The engine was a bit thrashy but I really liked that car.

  • avatar
    Robert Schwartz

    “the rear seat is still a lightless bunker, with little visibility anywhere.”

    The same could be said for all recent cars.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    These rentals will ensure plenty of parts in the yards for future restorations…

  • avatar
    mrcrispy

    Backup camera should be standard equipment in this (and I guess many others). With those massive C pillars and tiny rear window, the blind spot has got to be huge.

  • avatar

    Is it wrong that the 2011 Mustang has squashed any desire I had to own a Challenger of any variety?

    I still think it’s the best looking of the three, but something about that new 5.0 in the Mustang really puts it over the top.

    Also, those rims are way too small for the car. I’m not fan of oversized wheels, but these look like they were plucked from a Hot Wheels car.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    “Only the large, cheap and nasty steering wheel is truly offensive.” I could actually live with the rest of the V6 Challenger’s faults but that steering wheel is a deal-killer for me. It would be especially grating if one plunked down some serious coin for the R/T or SRT-8 variants, only to find the same, grungy steering wheel out of last year’s base Dodge Ram.

    As for the outside, retro appearance, it reminds me of the old days before aerodynamics when stylists had a much freer hand. The problem was that styling that looked good usually wasn’t so great at keeping the car planted at high speeds. The cars tended (in cop parlance) to “get air”, i.e., a cop could tell a speeder just by visually seeing the body noticably riding higher as air got between the body and suspension. A good movie example is to watch the cars in the Bullitt chase scene when they’re on the highway. You can tell both the Charger and Mustang were really going fast because they both had a lot of air between the bodies and tires.

    The new Challenger looks like the old Challenger ‘getting air’ at speed, only the new car does it while it’s standing still.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      The steering wheel in the Challenger is a slice of heaven compared to the medieval torture device that GM installed in the Camaro.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      Depends on your perspective. In terms of user-friendliness, this is likely true. But in appearance, the Camaro’s tiller (like the Mustang’s) is a whole lot better than the Challenger’s. And in a ponycar, aesthetics trumps practicality.

      Or, viewed in another way, the Challenger’s claim to fame is based entirely on being more retro than either the Camaro or Mustang. Why, then, didn’t Chrysler go the extra mile and come up with a retro steering wheel, as well?

    • 0 avatar
      nrd515

      Wow, I sat in a Camaro yesterday, and the steering wheel makes the Challenger’s look like a work of art. Same goes for the Mustang, at least last year’r model, I don’t know if they changed it for 2010, but the 2009 has the most hideous wheel I’ve seen in a long time. I don’t like the silver inserts on the Mopar wheels, and it’s a little too big, but it doesn’t bother me seeing it every day like I would if I had to see the Mustang’s or Camaro’s wheel for an hour a day. The Camaro has the ugliest dash I’ve ever seen in a Pony car, and I’ve seen a lot of ugly dashes, since I’ve owned three F-Body cars. Every one of them had an ugly dash, but nothing close to the new Camaro’s.

  • avatar
    boyphenom666

    Agreed. The Mustang is better looking and more true to the original than either the Challenger or the Camaro. To be true to the original, both cars were originally mid-sized cars, not large, blocky behemoths. The Camaro had too many sharp angles that haven’t grown on me, while the Challenger has a decent basic shape but is just too darned big. The Challenger would have been far more attractive as a Sebring-sized vehicle (on the proposed 200C platform). One more thing that is kind of a pet peeve of mine is that the Plymouth Barracuda of the same vintage was the far better looking car, IMO, especially from behind.

  • avatar
    Billy215

    Wouldn’t the Challenger make a great convertible?

    • 0 avatar
      NulloModo

      I’d have to see the results of someone with better imagination and photoshop skills than I posses, but at first glance, I’d say no. The biggest draw for the Challenger is the looks, and the way the roof integrates into the body is a big chunk of that beauty.

      Making the Challenger a drop-top, at least to my eyes by chopping off the B and C pillars at the base, would take a lot of the oomph from the design.

    • 0 avatar
      windswords

      Here. Judge for yourself:

      http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/08q2/2010_dodge_challenger_convertible-car_news/gallery

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    The new for 2010 5 speed automatic helps wake the 3.5′s performance up noticeably from the old 4 speed unit. The std ABS/ECS are also value plusses. I like this car better than the Camaro and Stang for two reasons: interior room/comfort and trunk space. I also prefer it’s exterior styling as it’s more true to the original compared to the others. The new 2011 V6 Stang is a good deal too starting at $22995 with 305 HP and 30 MPG. The new Pentastar V6 should make this even better. Both the Camaro and Challenger need to lose weight.

  • avatar
    mikenem

    As far as the proportions, wayyy to big. When I first saw one I thought Crown Vic coupe?

  • avatar
    Jackalope30

    The challenger scores a solid ‘C’ on it’s muscle car report card. The only one fast enough for consideration is the srt8, and then brand spankin’ new, you’re talking about nearly $50k for a car that would have its hands full with the $40k camaro SS and GT 5.0, never mind what the Japanese and the Bavarians will give you for that kind of scratch.

    The others disappoint. The R/T, featuring 375 horsepower worth of RWD V8 Detroit muscle will only just outrun a 2011 v6 stang, a car solidly in the mid 13′s, and available for $10k less. The lesser of ford’s stallions will only slightly fall away from it given equal conditions and equal driving talent. Ouch.

    The SE, unlike it’s V6 brethren, is every bit the sorority girl joke of a muscle car as it’s ancestors were. 250 are just not enough horses in the stable to move the portly LX about quickly enough. It would get stomped easily by a six from GM or ford (2011 that is), so it doesn’t even have the “Well, everybody else’s doin’ it” excuse. However…

    We can knock the car all we like, but in one particular area, Chrysler succeeds where the camaro falls short and mustang doesn’t even try; GT. This car is a true GT with a big back seat, a huge boot and a ride that soaks up the bumps panther-platform style. In their pursuit of sportiness and speed somewhere along the way, the other Detroit denizens have forgotten that the car is something someone has to live with for several years and there’s nothing wrong with making it more conducive to that end. Kudos to Chrysler for making a car that’s easier to live with – even if it is slower and less fun to drive. I wouldn’t buy one. But since the American GT car is nearly extinct now, I wouldn’t want to see it go either.

  • avatar
    treedom

    Uh, I’ve driven the Accord V-6 5-speed coupe with 18″ wheels, and a snoozer it is not. It’s no-kidding fast by anyone’s standards, and far more comfortable to ride in than, say, an Infiniti G. I’d take one over this puppy in a heartbeat.

  • avatar
    NickR

    Why doesn’t Chrysler install the 4.7L V8 as the base engine?

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      My guess is that the 4.7 costs more to build than the HEMI. It certainly has more moving parts.

    • 0 avatar
      educatordan

      @Nick

      I know the Challenger doesn’t come with it, but why not eliminate the 2.7ltr engine in ALL RWD applications so they can stop embarrassing themselves with what an underpowered lump it is? (I mean while were asking rhetorical questions.)

      The fact that it’s so impossible to find a V6 Charger, 300C, or Magnum that isn’t powered by the base, embarrassing in a rental car engine, has taken those vehicles off of my used car consideration list. I’ve even heard people say that the LX platform is decently built. Too bad that the majority come with such a lo-po engine.

    • 0 avatar
      NickR

      “My guess is that the 4.7 costs more to build than the HEMI. It certainly has more moving parts.”

      If so, maybe Chrysler needs to ‘Vortech-ize’ the Hemi for a 4.3 V6 Hemi.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    Educatordan,
    Chrysler plans to replace all of its 6 cylinder engines with the new Phoenix engine which is just coming on line. It can’t happen fast enough, especially considering the 2.7, which has lower output than a modern 2.4l I-4.

  • avatar
    RetroRocket

    I  just purchased a 2011 Dodge Challenger SE and I love it!!!! I use it as a daily driver, it’s got awesome style, the NEW Pentastar motor 3.6 liter that now has 305 horsepower and 268 ft/lb of torque.  The Dodge company just met the competition on V6′s; such as the Mustang or Camaro with V6 power plants.
    Here is the deal, I did NOT buy this car to race with, nor do I give a S*** what other cars in it’s class do, because I have no desire to race.  What I DO have a desire for is excellent true retro styling, sufficient power and good gas mileage.  And, the 2011 Dodge Challenger SE has all that; awesome retro styling, good power (305 horses), and good gas mileage to boot ( I get 20 mpg around town and 29 on the road). To me in a time of gas crunch crisis, I choose wisely, to have style, a good power (not true muscle car power like in V8′s of course not), but sufficient power, and a great touring car with plenty of room, and good gas mileage!  So for an old fart like me, that remembers the original Challenger (I test drove one a green one back in the day), I almost bought a 1970 Dodge Challenger as my first car, but my pops wouldn’t let me get it, because it was too fast, and I would get into trouble.  I now get to own one, and I chose the V6 model, because to me I don’t need more that 305 HP, and 268 ft/lbs of torque.  This car will lay you back in the seat man!  I don’t need to launch at red lights like at a drag strip or race track, just a quick scat is enough for me.  But, for the true die hard muscle heads, just buy the Dodge Challenger V8 SRT8 332 you’ll be glad you did, nothing else looks like it, sounds like it, or rides like it, and race the Mustang or Camaro with it, it will hang, for sure, it will hang tough, maybe win.  I personally like the extra room and weight, it gives the Challenger a smoother ride that it’s adversaries; such as the Mustang and Camaro do NOT have; I know because I test drove them all.  Just drove another Mustang CS 5.0 liter V8 with 412 or so HP, and it is a fun car, but again, the gas mileage is not there, and the looks aren’t there for me, and the ride is well a little choppy compared to my Challenger.  In conclusion, the future of cars is in cars that will have the best of BOTH worlds of horsepower and efficiency and once again I found it in the new 2011 Dodge Challenger SE.
    My Two Cents,
    RetroRocket (a.k.a. FasteNough!)
    2011 Dodge Challenger SE owner
    305 Horsepower
    268 ft/lbs torque


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States