>Challenger R/T >5.7L HEMI >only 375HP >in 2017

>>17306339
The '11 V6 Mustang with the PP is as fast as an R/T Challenger. This isn't news.

hahahaha 375hp from 5.7L

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

shame because challengers are the only cool modern muscle cars too.

Seems like someone is conveniently forgetting the 6.4 liter R/T

>>17306365
Aren't 6.4L Challengers pretty pricey? Like a good 5k+ over a well equipped GT?

>>17306339

Been this way for a long time. The worst part is that the Mopar tax makes modifying them twice as expensive as the competition, too.

That said, properly building a 5.7 can get you a monster of a car. Some of the blocks can take a stroke and bore put to 426 (for most, 410 is max). They can take a retarded amount of boost with good internals, too. There's several across the internet with way over 1000hp. It's just not ideal because you can build other cars cheaper.

Still, I own and daily an R/T. I have every intention of building it into a time attack car. I want to do it because I like the car, not the potential.

Buying a Mustang because it's cheaper, easier power is gay. I bought a car I love and I'm glad I did.

>>17306379
But it's faster than a GT

>>17306365
How does the current 6.4L HEMI and GM 6.2L compare?

The former makes 485HP from 6.4L, the latter makes 460HP from 6.2L, that's pretty comparable. But what about size, weight, efficiency, and reliability?

>>17306394
Marginally, in a straight line. In the corners, it's quite a bit slower. Weight and unsophisticated chassis aside, I don't know why Dodge thought putting 245 width rear tires on a car with nearly 500HP was a good idea.

>>17306416
The Challenger is a bigger car, not even the same class.

>>17306416
Because its fun with those tires. Gets sideways easily. If you spend like 8k more you get srt with 275 tires and bunch of other suspension shit
But the 6.4 is all that matters for that rumble and those zf8 crackle shifts
Also
>mustang
>corners
Kek

>>17306522
Even with the stick axle the Mustang was within spitting distance of a M3 with the competition package. Saying Mustangs can't handle while talking about the Challenger is flat out retarded.

>>17306534

Where's the gif of the BMW and the Challenger?

The r/t is meant to be a traditional muscle car with traditional muscle performances and back then hp rating were bullshit so its a bit faster than old muscle car or its just a poorman mercedes SL.

>people complaining a muscle car cant turn
>complaining about a muscle car not being able to turn
>muscle car
>turning

in what universe is a muscle car SUPPOSED to be able to turn? They're 0-60 and quarter mile monsters. That's the only thing you should be judging them on.

If you want track performance, get a Viper.

>>17307293
OP is pointing out the Challenger R/T is the biggest and heaviest yet currently has the weakest V8.

The world has forgotten about a cruising V8, back in the day there used to be 3 or 4 V8 options, and 2 or 4 barrel carburetor options on top of it. The 5.7 is no longer out there to set records but is still fun and had modding potential. The Scat Pack competes for the performance.

>>17307328
not talking about OP.

talking about people in the thread that are comparing it to cars that are completely different beasts.

if you're going to compare the challenger r/t to something, compare it to the SS.

>>17307334
Which it still loses to...

The Challenger R/T is simply the cheapest car on the market with a V8.

>>17306339
Is that not enough HP? lol

my 2000 5.0 explorer only makes 215....

Sure would love to have 300+ on my V8.

>>17307344
>more hp
>weighs less

well duh. but at least that's a better comparison than a mustang gt.

>>17307344
isnt the SS supercharged?

File: b5challengerhellcat.jpg (491KB, 920x654px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 920x654px

That's alright. Big brother will piss all over the rest of them til the Demon arrives

>>17306339
base R/T Challengers are only around 30k putting them around 3-5k under the lowest Mustang and Camaro V8 option, at least in my area.

So I see it as just a "I just want the V8 torque and sound" option rather than anything performance oriented, and really that's what the
Challenger is all about.

>>17306339
That's pathetic.

The V6 in the new NSX alone makes 500hp. The same for the gtr.

Shit, a naturally aspirated inline 4 Honda engine makes 240-260hp with just 2.0l of displacement.

Fucking Mopar is just sad.

File: 1493863853585.jpg (35KB, 567x437px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 567x437px

>>17307293
>get a Viper

>>17306416
>unsophisticated chassis
It's a fucking E-class, not a goddamn B-body from 1968!

Why is it so fucking pigfat? I understand being a bit hefty due to creature comforts and safety bullshit, but still.

File: vee ate.png (12KB, 644x428px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 644x428px

>american engines
>relevant in 2017

>>17307464
No. It has a ls3

>>17308032
why does that box have a hair dryer?

>>17308692
because its gay

>>17306339

Everyone is also forgetting that if you throw boost at it you blow holes in the block, and it'll drop valves with any cam work done

>>17308032
>Yuropoors will never make an ultralight and ultra small pushrod turbo i4

>>17309229
Pushrods only make V engines smaller. A pushrod I4 is stupid.

>>17306361
name another modern muscle car

>>17308020
Well, it's a muscle car. Being pigfat kind of goes with the territory.

>>17308675
camaro ss is a direct port injected LT1, not the LS3.

>>17310913
Are the Mustang and Camaro exempt from being muscle cars simply because they are capable of going around a corner? Because they do the rest of muscle car stuff well

>>17310913
The camaro and mustang are both muscle cars. No matter how many autistis call it a pony car, it's still a muscle car.

File: 1403837987365.png (48KB, 400x389px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 400x389px

>muscle car
>owner has a dearth of muscles

too bad its the only real muscle car

>>17310942
they're exempt because they aren't good at corners and they look like shit

>>17310931
He was talking about the Chevy SS sedan.

ITT: Children who ride the bus.

>>17310946
>pony car
>owner browses /ml-
Wait nevermind

>>17306361
Meanwhile in Germany:
1000 HP hybrid with a 1.6 liter turbocharged engine :^)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-AMG_Project_One

File: jimmy_yesdear.jpg (33KB, 230x364px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 230x364px

>>17311035

>The engine produces 748 hp
>It only lasts for a maximum of 31,000 miles before it has to be fucking replaced
>it won't even be street legal

Yeah wow Germany way 2 go.

>>17311057
Still faster than your shitbox :^)

>>17311288
average speed over time has the shitbox faster when it hits 100k miles :vD

>>17310913
Chevy SS?

>>17310973
>they aren't good at corners

The 350R and ZL1 can outpace most last-gen supercars, I guess those couldn't turn either

File: 1494281558749.png (209KB, 287x464px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 287x464px

>>17311035
>You'll never have one or even see one. EVER.

Heavy natural aspirated engine doesn't do as well as light charged air systems. /o/ is full of geniuses.

Now, look at the performance models.

>>17309428
*air cooled pushrod turbo v4

>>17311301
How can it go over 100k miles if you ride the bus? :D

>>17307646
Not relevant comparisons