Challenger falling behind in road courses?

[a_Username]

I believe this is the vehicle in need of a track oriented option... It's competitive from an average driver standpoint to its price range, but in the tracks it is really lacking.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/track20.html
I threw in some of its direct competition in there, as well as some others for perspective.

Camaro SS: 3:09.5
Nissan Nismo 370z: 3:12.0
Mazda 3 MPS: 3:16.0
Dodge Challenger SRT-8: 3:16.2

[Mr. Wyndham]

It's a touring car first and absolutely foremost.

It's comfortable, it's a looker....but it's NOT a competitive vehicle in terms of performance.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

It's a touring car first and absolutely foremost.

It's comfortable, it's a looker....but it's NOT a competitive vehicle in terms of performance.

If that is what Dodge is going for then they need to make a change. That goes against the definition of a muscle car, and this car should definitely not be all show and no go.

[wbt]

I honestly believe Dodge/Chrysler are in BIG trouble and could be on their way out. The next 5 years will be very interesting....

[meanmike]

I think of the Challenger as cruiser and a potential strip car nothing more

I love it's look though.

[305pride]

i truly feel the challenger could be better. its already a good car to start with.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

If that is what Dodge is going for then they need to make a change. That goes against the definition of a muscle car, and this car should definitely not be all show and no go.

Not really. Muscle cars were stylish and had great straight line performance. The SRT-8 Challenger fits the bill. The fact that it doesn't handle well actually strengthens is position as a muscle car, since that was the domain of pony cars and sports cars. Although, the Challenger was initially considered to be a pony car as well.

Originally Posted by wbt

I honestly believe Dodge/Chrysler are in BIG trouble and could be on their way out. The next 5 years will be very interesting....

They don't have 5 years. The next 2 will decide their fate.

[MrIcky]

I don't think 'no go' is fair. They've got reasonable performance and at least with the 6 speed they can rip up their tires behaving in an irresponsible V8ish fashion. I think Dodge just did their own thing. It's definitely the most comfortable of the 3 cars with the plushest ride. I think even the SRT feels plusher than the SS.

I think it has reasonable performance for everyday play for the average person. It definitely 'feels' muscley.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

I don't think 'no go' is fair. They've got reasonable performance and at least with the 6 speed they can rip up their tires behaving in an irresponsible V8ish fashion. I think Dodge just did their own thing. It's definitely the most comfortable of the 3 cars with the plushest ride. I think even the SRT feels plusher than the SS.

I think it has reasonable performance for everyday play for the average person. It definitely 'feels' muscley.

They have reasonable performance on the 1/4 mile, and that's only with average drivers. The the Challenger SRT8s haven't even broke 12's yet after 2 years... and the fact it was beaten by a Mazda3 around a track definitely shows some lack of "go."

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Not really. Muscle cars were stylish and had great straight line performance. The SRT-8 Challenger fits the bill. The fact that it doesn't handle well actually strengthens is position as a muscle car, since that was the domain of pony cars and sports cars. Although, the Challenger was initially considered to be a pony car as well.

They don't have 5 years. The next 2 will decide their fate.

No matter its technical category, it will be compared with the Mustang/Camaro. It may fit the bill in its own little category, but Chrysler needs to be focusing on profitable, competitive vehicles.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

They have reasonable performance on the 1/4 mile, and that's only with average drivers. The the Challenger SRT8s haven't even broke 12's yet after 2 years... and the fact it was beaten by a Mazda3 around a track definitely shows some lack of "go."

Why are you expecting a muscle car to do well around a circuit?

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Why are you expecting a muscle car to do well around a circuit?

Why are you not expecting the Challenger to hang with its main competition?

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by a_Username

They have reasonable performance on the 1/4 mile, and that's only with average drivers. The the Challenger SRT8s haven't even broke 12's yet after 2 years... and the fact it was beaten by a Mazda3 around a track definitely shows some lack of "go."

An SRT8 has a top speed of around 170+? 10 years ago that would have been knocking on supercar territory.

It was a Mazdaspeed 3 which isn't a slouch.

And it did hang out with it's competition when it came out in 08 or whenever, then everyone else improved.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

An SRT8 has a top speed of around 170+? 10 years ago that would have been knocking on supercar territory.

It was a Mazdaspeed 3 which isn't a slouch.

A Mazdaspeed 3 isn't a slouch in its own price bracket. It bested, if ever so slightly, a car that is around $15,000 more. Ten years ago there wouldn't have been a Challenger. Your last statement is nothing but Chrysler's fault.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Why are you not expecting the Challenger to hang with its main competition?

I expect the 21st century sports car Camaro that weighs hundreds of lbs less with the suspension tuned on the Nurburgring to handily beat the Challenger. What I can't figure out is your acceptance of it as a muscle car + your concern about its circuit performance. Muscle cars never did well on circuits, its not part of their heritage. So whats the big hang-up?