By on April 17, 2014

From Front to back: 2015 Dodge Challenger SXT, 2015 Challenger 3

 

Dodge’s long-rumored 6.4L supercharged Challenger isn’t coming to New York, but there are a number of important upgrades for 2015.

The big news for 2015 is the addition of the 8-speed automatic across the broad, a long awaited upgrade to the Challenger. An upgraded electrical architecture allows better implementation of UConnect as well as electric power steering with three selectable modes. Eight trim levels are now available, with new Shaker and Scat Pack models available with the 5.7L and 6.4L V8 on the Shaker, while the Scat Pack gets the 6.4L engine exclusively. The 6.4L engine gets a bump to 485 horsepower and 475 lb-ft on the Scat Pack. Dodge is claiming that the 8-speed Scat Pack model can hit 60 mph in the low 4-second range.

Shaker models get a Super Track Pack suspension package, Goodyear Eagle F1 tires, sport seats and a very retro graphics package – indeed, Dodge is going long on the retro theme for the 2015 upgrades.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

82 Comments on “New York 2014: 2015 Dodge Challenger Gets Badly Needed Upgrades...”


  • avatar
    Hummer

    Oh wow, looks good, one of few cars that can actually offer good styling and performance with modern tech for a reasonable price.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    The Challenger once again digs a hole for the Camaro. This car just does everything right for the crowd that would purchase a muscle type auto. And it’s comfortable to drive, unlike the poor visibility camero with those slit windows.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Except the Camaro (although it’s too big) can actually handle, while the Challenger is a sofa cushion trying to pretend it’s a muscle car.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        Have to agree – had an R/T Challenger as a rental with a number of performance goodies. It was a very comfortable, powerful, wallowing cave on wheels. Rear visibility was horrific in particular. Absolutely gorgeous car – just no fun in driving. It is too retro (but much better than its ancestor)

        • 0 avatar
          MrIcky

          The STP fixes that wallowing, and that will be standard on the scat pack. It’s a significant suspension change.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            There’s only so much you can do when the curb weight is 4200 pounds.

            It also looks like you have to take the tacky tape graphics to get the STP. Not the end of the world, but a waste of an afternoon with a hair dryer to remove them.

          • 0 avatar
            Pinzgauer

            Agreed it does fix the wallowyness, and last I checked it was only $595 and did not require any stripes. It should be the standard suspension honestly – it makes a huge difference.

          • 0 avatar
            danio3834

            4000+ lbs is pretty standard for modern Touring Coupes. While it’s nearly impossible to avoid comparisons with the Mustang and Camaro, the Challenger is really a bigger and more useful touring car ala E550 than it is a pony car.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            So you don’t have to get the Shaker trim to get the STP? Dodge’s materials make it look like you do.

            I think a 4000+ lb. coupe is just as ridiculous with a Mercedes or BMW badge on it as a Dodge badge. It’s just a stupid segment. There’s zero point to having two doors rather than four on that big and heavy a car, not even styling or image — it just makes a tasteful big sedan look like a midlife crisis toy.

            (And even the E550, while almost exactly as heavy, isn’t as huge. It’s a full foot shorter than the Challenger and half a foot narrower.)

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Well Car & Driver has always maintained that the Challenger was the most “throwback” of the new muscle cars in the way that it handled, rode, and the overall driving experience.

        So I guess you could say that the Challenger is the car of choice for people old enough to have driven the 1960s/1970s originals.

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I like the cushier Grand Touring vibe the Challenger has. Roomier and softer handling, but with a beastly engine driving the rear wheels. I’d love to take one on a road trip of the US!

  • avatar
    autojim

    Retro, right down to the superfluous trim ring around the Shaker hood opening to disguise a lack of metal finishing… JUST LIKE THE 1970s! :D

  • avatar
    pb35

    That B5 blue looks fantastic, this refresh is a winner IMO.

  • avatar
    catachanninja

    Still overweight and under powered compared to the competition. Pass

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      Underpowered?

      “The 6.2-liter “Hellcat” engine, as it’s called by insiders, is smaller than the current Challenger’s largest V8, but can reportedly generate more horsepower than the 660-horsepower V10 in the SRT Viper. Dodge and Chrysler officials may not let that happen, but a Challenger that can hash it out with the top Mustang GT500 and Camaro ZL1 models is an exciting prospect.”
      http://www.edmunds.com/dodge/challenger/2015/

      • 0 avatar
        catachanninja

        First time I’ve heard 660. Most the numbers I’ve heard are 620-640, still below a Shelby and 300-500 lbs heavier. It’s still basically a boat. Looks good but not worth it

        • 0 avatar

          The Shelby that is being discontinued in a matter of weeks, you mean? That Shelby?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            It will be back. Not in its current form though.

          • 0 avatar
            catachanninja

            I don’t have $60k to spend anyway but to paraphrase Omar of the wire if you gonna come at the king you best not miss. 30k is more my price range so I’ll be looking at base gts or lightly used ones and at the price range the challenger is definitely not on my radar, I want I don’t trust gm anymore. I sat in a 370 z but that’s too small for my fat hide to get comfortable in.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Add “overpriced” to that as well. To get an engine that’s competitive with the 5.0 in the Mustang or 6.2 in the Camaro, you have to get an SRT8, which starts at $15K more.

      As for that Hellcat, if you want to pay 70-80 grand for a Dodge, be my guest.

  • avatar
    Dan

    That silver Shaker looks sick.

    But where did that towering wall of a chastity console between the seats come from and why wasn’t it immediately sent back there?!

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    Boy, I would have been pissed seeing this had I bought a Chally SRT-8 last year. This has addressed my major issues with the car. Nice job, Chrysler.

  • avatar
    bill h.

    My son is getting one of these soon, as he is a participant in Chrysler’s employee evaluation/early feedback program. I’m hoping to take it for a spin sometime in the summer.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Unlike the Charger, this update is a winner.
    Torqueflite, I love it.
    http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger/2015.html

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Sorry. A 4400 lb., 198-inch-long coupe is just stupid. And this one is ugly, too. The colors are awful, and the doorhandles look like something off a 1980s Hyundai. I’ll pass.

    • 0 avatar

      My daily driver is currently a 1979 LeBaron with a huge 100 HP! I think there is plenty of redeeming qualities to the personal luxury coupe. It’s not for everyone, but different taste is what makes cars a fun industry to follow and work in.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      In fairness I just realized I exaggerated the weight. It’s “only” 4200 lbs. Still 350 lbs. heavier than the already too heavy Camaro SS.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      You keep citing the weight, what your not telling us is why 4200 pounds is bad if – it has extra power to make up for it, has a suspension available to correct the weight issue, and also has more room than its (barely) competitors.

      More weight wins me over every day of the week, so long as it’s not an impediment.

      Its not a Miata, and no one ever claimed it to be one. Why does everything have to handle like a mountain carver? What’s wrong with a highway cruiser?

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        It’s self-evident that weight is bad. It makes both acceleration and fuel economy worse given a certain amount of power. It makes both grip and braking worse given a certain amount of tire.

        And it makes it impossible to tune a suspension for good handling and good ride at the same time. Lighter cars are better highway cruisers, not just better Miatas. The heavier the car, the stiffer the suspension has to be to keep the body under good control, making the ride harsher. Alternately, assuming the suspension is soft enough for a good ride, the heavier the body, the more wallow and float you get.

        And all of this is just the objective issues with weight — it doesn’t address the subjective problem that heavy cars feel joyless and piggish from behind the wheel.

        • 0 avatar
          Frylock350

          I take frequent long road trips with many hours of consecutive driving so the issue of ride quality is near and dear to me. An obvious trend emerges if you spend time on extended trips: smaller and lighter cars have horrific ride quality. A good highway cruiser isolates your from the pavement and keeps the ride smooth and even. A Chevy Suburban, all 5800lbs of it, delivers a more serene smooth highway ride than any vehicle I’ve ever been in or driven including luxury flagships.

          Inertia is an intrinsic benefit to a higher curb weight that absolutely helps ride quality. This isn’t my opinion its simple physics. The energy of impacts from road imperfections is more well absorbed by the larger mass. It’s why a pickup truck rides better when its loaded with cargo. Consider why heavier cars handle worse, its also inertia at work. The larger mass doesn’t want to change direction as quickly. Lighter cars handle better because the lower inertia is easier to overcome. An object at motion in a certain directions carries a measurable amount of force. If you have object A at 3000lbs and object B at 4000lbs traveling at the same velocity, object A will carry less force. If force travelling in a different direction is applied to objects A and B (like for example hitting a bump or pothole, object A will experience more deflection because of its lower energy than object B. If you think of ride quality as resisting motion vectors other than the desired one, then you have to conclude that all things being equal additional mass equals additional better ride quality.

          Your definition of joy and mine differ greatly. While I might enjoy a 3-series on a twisty track, driving for 8 consecutive hours on mostly straight American highways with the cruise on will result in copious amounts of back pain in said 3. That’s not joy. Joy to me is arriving in comfort at the helm of my Suburban.

          Now I’m not saying your opinion is wrong, I’m simply offering my experiences as a counter-example. Remember that the way people use and enjoy cars isn’t always equivalent to your own experience.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            More inertia doesn’t eliminate a car body’s responses to impact with a fixed road surface. It just slows them down. So, given a suspension of similar firmness, if you add weight, the response to a bump changes from a quick motion from which the car recovers quickly to a wallow, which may be smaller in magnitude, but which is also slower and requires more damping (not usually present) to recover from without multiple oscillations (i.e. wallow).

            I find well-controlled, well-damped motion far more comfortable than wallow, which makes me feel both out of control and seasick. You, on the other hand, like the slower, longer-lasting motions better than the faster, smaller ones. When I ride in Escalade airport shuttles, I feel like I’m on a boat. I may not feel every expansion joint but I sure do feel the uncontrolled body motion for a second or more after hitting a big bump, rise, or dip. My idea of the perfect highway ride is more like that of a Mercedes E350: soft enough to take the edge off the big bumps but well-damped enough to ensure the car recovers from impact very quickly.

          • 0 avatar
            burgersandbeer

            “I find well-controlled, well-damped motion far more comfortable than wallow, which makes me feel both out of control and seasick.”

            Same here. To relate this back to Chrysler, I once rented a 6th generation Charger which I found absolutely terrifying due to wallow. I’ll take a few extra hits from potholes and expansion joints to get rid of wallow anytime.

            The dimensions of the Challenger bother me more than the weight. There are a couple at the office garage, and I never get over the space they occupy. It’s comical.

    • 0 avatar
      johnny_5.0

      More choice is always good, and I say this as someone with a ’13 GT who’s now seriously considering the ’15 Challenger. Even with a kid who’s only 4, using my car to take him anywhere is an uncomfortable proposition. We have other cars that are better at swallowing lots of people, but sometimes I still either need or want to take him and other people in mine. I’d give up both straight line speed due to the weight and even with the STP it wouldn’t handle as well. But it would probably still be sufficient to be our “fun” car. Would a 4 door like the Charger be even more practical still with kids? Of course. But there is still a niche out there were a big grand touring coupe is practical enough while offering other things the buyers value (like style, and I’ll disagree and say I quite like the styling, even though most women I know hate it alone among the pony cars). Or maybe I’ll end up in a Livernois tuned Ecoboost Flex that can seat 7 and would be nearly as fast in a straight line as an RT…who knows.

    • 0 avatar
      Frylock350

      That’s your opinion that a large coupe is stupid. I happen to LOVE this car’s size. Why can’t a sharp looking 2-door also function as a comfortable highway cruiser? I want to buy this and hope that it will work out that I can. I detest the styling and proportions of modern cars, they all look like wedges of cheese with a melted-V front end and a belt line rising faster than the national debt. I love the styling of classic American iron. I love the flat beltlines, the long hoods, the muscular haunches, etc that characterize such cars. The Challenger delivers that in spades. I don’t give a rat’s ass that cab forward modern jellybean design is the most space efficient and slippery in the wind tunnel, it looks like homogenous crap. This car is a fun car, a car that you buy with emotions; its not a goddamn Camry.

    • 0 avatar

      > Sorry. A 4400 lb., 198-inch-long coupe is just stupid

      You keep quoting 4200 and now 4400. The v6 is ~3800, the v8 ~4100, and only the SRT specialty trim is 4200. The Camaro equivalent 1lz is also almost 4200.

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I love that blue, and love the wheels on the green one, but even the base model wheels look really good too. I could see myself getting one of these, that new interior is going to really drive some sales judging by the comments we see about the other pony cars poor interior.

    It still seems like such a massive car, but I think that’s more of a trick of the eyes thanks to the heavy looking rear end these cars have. I wonder how one of these would be on an autocross track??

    I guess its my childish ways but I can’t help but chuckle at “Skat” Pack.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Not a trick of the eyes. It’s actually massive. It’s 198 inches long (nearly a foot longer than a Camaro) and 4200 lbs. in the V8 trims.

      • 0 avatar
        challenger2012

        Maybe you should talk to someone who actually owns a Challenger, like me, and ask them why they purchased one. But to address your rants of 4200 lbs. Who cares? The Challenger is not some nimble, quick, fuel miser. It is a quiet, comfortable, high speed cruiser. You can actually turn on the radio and hear music rather than road noise like in so many Honda Civics and other small car or have a conversation at 70 MPH without raising your voice to be heard. Nothing about a 5.7 V-8 Hemi says anything about fuel economy, although it does come with a fuel management system. I get between 24-25 on the highway doing 65-70, not to bad for 4200 lbs and 372 HP. It is also uniquely American. What else from Japan, Germany, Korea of for that matter from any other manufacturer looks like it? The black racing stripes again make it unique. In the 2 years I have owned it, I have easily had 20 people come up to me at gas stations, hotels, restaurants, stop lights, etc. and compliment me on how good looking the car is. (I bet this has never happened to you with your car.) My car is Fire Engine Red, with a sun roof and black side stripes. I may in a year or 2 look at the Mustang, but I may also buy another Challenger, and I wouldn’t think twice about doing it.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The reason I rant about the weight is because it’s not necessary. I have a heavy car, a G8, that’s an awesome highway cruiser. But my car, while being 200 lbs. lighter than the Challenger, also has two more doors, limo-like room in the back seat, and a huge trunk!

          The Challenger could easily do everything it does just as well while being 400-500 lbs. lighter and over a foot shorter. It’s just bloated for no reason. I’d shut up if it were under 3800 lbs.

          (And although I wouldn’t buy one, I’m genuinely glad you enjoy your car.)

          • 0 avatar
            Frylock350

            You know its ironic. I test drove and considered the purchase of a Pontiac G8 a few years ago for use as a roomy highway cruiser. The car was a blast to drive and comfortable to sit in, but the ride quality was hard and unyielding; I felt like it could tell if i ran over a dime. If it was a second toy car I’d have bought it in a heartbeat though. I’ve still yet to drive anything as fun for the price and size.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Wow, we have different expectations.

            I think the G8 has a cushy, soft ride, and I loved driving it 2500 miles cross-country in four days (the seats are perfect), but I find it just a bit on the floaty side for my preference. It works well for what I use it for but if I had engineered it myself I would have had a bit better motion control built in.

            I don’t want a car that won’t tell me if I run over something — that makes me feel like I have no control. I just want it to filter out the hard edges of impacts, reduce noise and vibration from rough pavement textures, and avoid wallow (which I would define as repetitive uncontrolled motion following impact).

          • 0 avatar
            Yoss

            I’m not sure about making it a foot or more shorter. IMO that would throw the proportions off too much.

            Maybe I’m just too old fashioned when it comes to car aesthetics, but I like a larger ratio between length and height. To keep the nice proportions you’d have to go shorter in the passenger area and no one wants that.

    • 0 avatar
      05lgt

      Scat pack… Oops, SKat pack always sounded like a colostomy bag to me. Don’t get me wrong, my lottery garage has room for one of these. Better in every way but price than my 70. There would be a Mustang too.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      I think the styling does make it seem bigger than it is. That said, it’s still a ridiculously large car. The only reason I’m conceding that the styling adds bulks is that shockingly, a Lincoln Town Car is significantly larger and length and width (215.4″ x 78.5″), and just as heavy.

      Looking at the two, I wouldn’t have guessed. Then again, looking at the Challenger I wouldn’t have guessed any larger car existed

  • avatar
    mjz

    The interior is a HUGE improvement over the current model.

  • avatar

    #1. The HELLCAT is a 6.2-Liter with a Supercharger.

    #2. It took longer than it should’ve to update to Uconnect touch, but at least they finally got there.

  • avatar

    Looks great. I love seeing these out on the road, maybe one day yours truly will have one… Sigh…..

  • avatar
    matador

    I usually hate car redesigns, but let’s see:

    ✔ Nothing Screwed Up
    ✔ Big and Awesome
    ✔ Nice, Functional Interior Styling
    ✔ Not Enough Angles to Look Like Oragami
    ✔ Red Interior Option

    It’s official. I’m in love with the car.

  • avatar

    If I lived in the US, I’d be hard pressed between this and a Mustang.

    Beautiful car with some exaggerations I could happily live without. The shaker for instance. The graphics, though they look fine, would also not be my choice. How do you wax a car with that?

    Love the red or orange interior. Makes the car look more upscale, at least in the pics.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    The shaker hood looks like the silly gimmick it is when the exposed air filter is right next to it. If the engine is being fed via the cold air intake, that means the purpose of the shaker is to stick out and..shake?

  • avatar
    pb35

    The stripes could be deleted on the 2014 shaker if I’m not mistaken.

  • avatar
    cognoscenti

    Wake me up when the Challenger loses 1000 pounds. I’m thinking Demon 340.

  • avatar
    Arminius

    To answer a prior question of why a two door on such a large vehicle, they are more comfortable for tall people. I’m tall enough that almost every car/CUV/SUV I drive has the driver’s seat at the farthest travel. As a result in nearly all sedans my elbow is constantly hitting the B pillar. It’s not as bad in CUVs/SUV but enough to be annoying. Plus the seat is so far back that hanging your left arm out the window is not a comfortable proposition (a small pleasure I greatly enjoy in the spring/summer). A two door solves this problem. I realize this sounds like a very trivial issue but it was enough to prompt me to get a two door GTI over the 4 door. Plus large two door coupes remind me of the land yachts my Dad used to drive in the 70’s (the Toronado was my favorite).

  • avatar
    Numbers_Matching

    This car is still too bloated compared to the competition and even its predesessor is far sleeker.
    a 7/8 scale version would be perfect.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    The design is still a little too “GUNS AND BEER AND AMURRRICA” for me, but the updates are impressive.

  • avatar
    MrIcky

    I drove all the competition and there is no question that the Camaro and Mustang are faster. But as a daily driver in the freeway slog of America, the Challenger really is a superior car for the real world.

    It won’t win at a track day, but it handles well with STP and will easily land you in jail no matter how windy the road. It eats up pavement joints and less than perfect roads. It’s torque curve is great so you can be lazy on your shifting. It’s basically a cop-car so put on some snow tires and you can handle bad weather. 4 real people fit. And it does glorious burnouts. I’m not that old but my boy racer days are over- I spend 80% of my driving time locked between 65 and 75mph staring at the bumper in front of me on the freeway.

    Not disrespecting the others, but I didn’t feel like I fit well in either of the competition’s cars and I thought they’d be tougher to live with.

  • avatar
    PenguinBoy

    Looks like a nice update – I like it!

    For those who don’t think a performance car should be this big and heavy, FCA will be happy to sell you an Alfa 4C – but the Challenger is not meant to be a lightweight, minimalist sports car. It’s also worth noting that the original E-Body Challenger was bigger and heavier than the Mustang and Camaro of the era, so it could easily accommodate the big block and Hemi.

  • avatar
    NoGoYo

    The Shaker is cool and all, but I’m pretty sure the Challenger got a “power bulge” hood with dual inlets while only the Barracuda got the Shaker…

    But hey, I can’t say I’d mind a Trans-Am package on a Camaro, so what do I know.

  • avatar
    Clarence

    Are the headlights LED, or just the rings around the headlights?

    And is anyone else getting spammed with mobile app ads when browsing TTAC on an iphone?

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Very handsome, masculine car.

    Personally, I have no issues with the weight. It’s nice knowing that if a MiataScion350Z etc was to somehow crash head on into your Challenger you’d walk away and the “nimbler, lighter” car owner is getting scraped out of the wreckage piecemeal.

  • avatar
    Les

    The only thing that really put me off of the old Challenger was that bulbous ‘double-chin’ effect at the front and I like the little tweaks and tucks they’ve done to break-up that contour.

    Hang on, no more standard pistol-grip shifter?


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