Is the RT really worth it?

>>17381534
>5.7L v8
>Traction for days due to wide tires and good weight balance
>Wide ass engine bay
>Big comfy interior
Literally /Amerifat/ in hee

>RT worth it?
>5.7l is weak as shit and will grenade with any mods that increase power
>only 70HP more than the V6 Challenger (lol)
>Slower than a V6 Camaro

You tell me if the RT is worth it.

>5.7L
>375HP

Is this smog-era America from the 1980s? A V6 Camaro literally has a better power-to-weight than the base V8 Challenger. A Mustang with a Ford Racing power pack (doesn't effect warranty) makes 472hp from 5.0L.

>>17381534
No. Either get the SRT or just go with the V6.

It's the cheapest V8 car on the market and it's also the best looking.

>>17381949
My de-tuned stock F-150 Coyote makes more power than that. And my F-150 is probably lighter too. And it can go offroad...

>>17381534
Depends on what you're looking for.

Comfy cruiser that can be fun at stop lights? Go for it as its a super comfortable car with good power. 5 seconds to 60 ain't slow.

High performance sports car?
Nope. Get the 6.4 L V8 if you want to beat mustangs or other competitors cuz the 5.7 just doesn't make enough power

>>17381983
Nah, neither

>>17381949
the 5.0 coyote is a much newer engine than the 5.7 hemi (2011 v. 2003)

If you want to play that game, Dodge offers a performance stage kit that bumps the 5.7 L V8 to 450 HP and 450 torque (all under under warranty)

>>17381878
are you dumb enough to think that they have the same powertrain except for the motor lmao

>slower than V6 Camaro

is it slower than the camaro? probably. Does it look like a blockhead retarded child like the Camaro does? no

>>17382008
>cheaper than mustang
>cheaper than Camaro
>better looking than both

you're wrong though?

>>17381992
And it is slow

>>17382032
>no
Yeah actually it also pretty much looks like a blockhead retarded child

Between two retarded looking cars I'd rather have the faster one

>>17382052
nah

i suspect you just have really bad taste, you probably enjoy shit like American 70s cars made after '71 or something

>>17382059
I actually I just hate challengers, super ugly waste of money

>>17382073
confirmed

>all these poorfags that think V8=performance race car

The 5.7 hemi Charger/Challenger is like getting a 318 or 302 back in the day. Just to have a great cruiser that sounds good, has torque and doesn't break the bank. It's the cheapest V8 that you can buy new.

>>17382075
Confirmed for not liking your white trash hot wheels replica? Yup confirmed indeed

File: 1490669101704.jpg (34KB, 552x446px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 552x446px

>>17382107
>is probably unironically posting in the 90s jap car thread right this very second

>>17382112
Fuck ricers too

>>17382032
>are you dumb enough to think that they have the same powertrain except for the motor lmao

Explain.

>>17382175
The Camaro is a smaller car

>>17382188
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24GoZHci7b4

>>17381980
this.

>>17382045
R/T 32,995 quarter 14s
5.0 33,195 quarter 13s
man that 200 dollars savings though

and man the challenger is trash like the charger i understand, its the most fun reasonably priced sport sedan but the challenger R/T is expensive and slow.

File: 2017-06-11 22.45.38.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

Slower than a 10 year old 3 valve mustang...but they are great comfortable cruisers

It's not a car for benchracing faggots of /o/.

If you like how it looks and want something faster and larger than the average econobox, then get it.

If you can afford the 392, I definitely recommend it.

>HURR DURR NOT AS FAST AS X CAR
autism

>>17383391
Mate nobody is impressed with a car that took until 2013 to beat a 1.8 liter Honda in 0-60 times

>>17383291
One gets you Mercedes levels of ride quality. The other is a Mustang.

>>17383401
Excuse me, 2015 is when they finally got the trans upgrade

>>17383405
man i just dont get challenger, like the charger seems so much better, compfy suspension and crazy body roll makes sense, but the challenger is like all the worst parts of both worlds.

>>17383405
>>17383477
its like
>charger
good: compf, 4 doors, spacious
bad: body roll, heavy, slow
>5.0
good: fast, good handling, lighter
bad: small, harsh ride
Challenger
good: compf (for front seat),
bad: small (back seat), slow, body roll, heavy

>>17381980
This, except don't get the v6. Just get the SRT engine.

>>17383401

>HURR DURR BENCHRACING

you are an autistic faggot, please go back to /v/.