Quote:
Originally Posted by GrabberB5.Slow
The Camaro is a little big for my preference but the Camaro can pull it off with it's body lines and esthetics. The Challenger on the other hand, it's just so plain to me. The sides are almost completely flat with no lines, almost the same with the front and back.
Dodge's website says that the 392 will hit mid 12s in the auto, high 12's with the manual. Even if it hit 12.2 Bone stock like you said, your comparing the flagship challenger with the base Mustang and Camaro performance wise.
What is this "4 seater" Camaro and Mustang your referring to?
|
Have you ever priced a 2ss or GT with similar options to a standard SRT8? You are not talking much difference if any. and R/Ts are not that slow either running as quick as 13.2 bone stock with the auto and they start 1500-2k LESS than a GT or SS. They are not bad, they are just different. Bigger, hold 4 instead of 5, rear seat passengers don't want to kill you for riding in the back, smoother ride, options the Camaro could only dream of and some not even available on the Mustang, and even the R/t offers the adjustable suspension with it's availabe super track pack. You go under the assumption it has to be the quickest to be worth it, and fact is that is not the most important to everyone, heck, I would MUCH rather have a ZL1 than a 13 GT500. Oh, on the SRTs 12.2, that is quicker than what most ZL1s are running........ Also, finding the Challenger ugly puts you in a VERY VERY small minority, I like all 3, but you HAVE to honest that the Mustang is probably the one that gets the LEAST looks and likes of the 3......