2013 Mustang GT vs. 2015 Challenger R/T Which should I get and

Your only option to truly know is to test both. I'd test the Mustang second. The fast Challengers are the Scat Packs, the R/Ts aren't slow but the Mustang will dust on them a fair bit, as well as handle better. BUT the Challenger has much more usable back seats and looks cooler.

>>17582060
Insurance on challengers just spiked $350 just so you know.

>>17582060
5.0 with bolt on tune has been very successful. You can tune it for high rpm redline also.
Hemi is nice but if you have jdm background, you would appreciate mustang more I think

>>17582060
2013 mustang is solid axe shit (though it's still faster than the BRZ on a track lel).

Get a 2015 or up mustang.

>>17582079
>a well engineered 4 link setup with a panhard that can be converted to god tier 3 link cheaply in addition to being attached to one of the most legendary rear diffs of all time is shit
(You)

>>17582079
I've tested 13s and 15s and the 15 is way too small. Visibility is shit whereas in the 13, it's actually pretty good.

File: C2PCoptXAAEnIRo.jpg (10KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x256px

>>17582060
>Being heavier means nothing to me if it's also faster.

The Challenger is heavier, makes less power, and is slower than the Mustang.
Your statement makes no sense.

>>17582109
My point was that, for example, being heavier isn't inherently a bad thing. It could be faster, in which case the weight wouldn't matter to me.

>>17582087
The 2015 actually looks good for once. 2015 dodges also started looking good. The old rear/headlight looked like from 1980 and now they look pretty fucking good actually. Also desnt look like a soapbox anymore. Why did 2015 suddenly make american cars attractive?

File: 1500016177129.jpg (642KB, 1727x1727px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1727x1727px

>>17582175
So you want to be comparing:

> V6/Ecoboost Mustang vs Challenger RT
or
> 5.0 Mustang vs Challenger 392

>>17582199
IMO, the 13/14 Mustangs are the best looking Mustangs since 2004. And the 15+ Challengers look damn sexy. That's why I refuse to get an older Challenger.

File: 20170704_195025.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

Challenger because it looks cooler

>>17582216
not that other anon but its very well established that the V6 Stang/Camaro is faster than the RT and the GT/SS is faster than the SRTs.

>>17582216
Okay, but I'm comparing 5.0 Mustang vs. 5.7 Challenger.

It was a hypothetical comparison because you and I could check off a bingo board of things that are bad about each car, but there can be redeeming qualities that negate those.

For instance, the Challenger is shit for turning, but I can still get it in and out of parking spots and I'm not going to be paying $200 for a track day anyway. So that doesn't matter.

>>17582246
>GT/SS is faster than the SRTs
Citation needed.

File: N_U_T_T.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>17582234
Fuck, now I have to touch myself. 10/10, would be an evil villain in.

>>17582251
The 5.7 Challenger is slower. The engine is over a decade old and iron block. There is tons of aftermarket, some have made Hellcat levels of power with a 5.7 so tuning availability is plentiful just like the mustang.

The mustang will be faster on the track, it's lighter and smaller. The Challenger is comfier, more roomy and more practical.

>>17582328
Thanks anon!

File: 1500551486280.jpg (77KB, 750x731px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 750x731px

>>17582251
OK so back to your dumbass ststement:
>>17582109

>>17582342
What was the dumbass statement I made?

File: download.png (6KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 264x191px

>>17582356
See
>>17582109

>>17582480
>Look mom, I posted it again

I get your point. You think I said "The Challenger is heavier and faster", which I did not. I said, "Being heavier means nothing to me if it's also faster.", which doesn't refer to a specific vehicle and wasn't a factual statement; see >>17582251

>>17582480
You're not even arguing, you're just shitposting. Bye felicia.

>>17582060
When it comes to performance, the only real decent option for a Challenger without breaking the bank is the scat pack option, but even then the Challenger is vastly outperformed by its competition unless it is the Hellcat. So, Mustang GT is the winner there. However the Challenger ride quality is far better. It's a nice big comfy land cruiser.