2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 392 vs. 2011 Shelby GT350 - Comparison Test

[Sawyer]

http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/co...1-shelby-gt350

[Apex Motorsports]

The total price of this GT350 is over $80,000.

The GT350 is roughly double the price of the 392, on what grounds does that make for a good comparison? At that price the Mustang loses by default regardless of how it performs because it is an $80,000 Mustang.

[Sawyer]

Yeah I was wondering why they put these 2 up against eachother.

[c-dub]

Road and Track/Car and Driver are a bunch of tools in my opinion. It reminds me almost of when they ran the GT500 vs the SS camaro shortly after Camaro. It's like they have a ford man-part perminently lodged in their mouth that no matter what they need to showcase that they make a car that beats anything else just because...it's sad.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by c-dub

Road and Track/Car and Driver are a bunch of tools in my opinion. It reminds me almost of when they ran the GT500 vs the SS camaro shortly after Camaro. It's like they have a ford man-part perminently lodged in their mouth that no matter what they need to showcase that they make a car that beats anything else just because...it's sad.

you mean, except when it when it comes to picking car of the year excellent consipracy theory but ford doesnt build the gt350

[syr74]

Irony.

Compare a Corvette Z06 Carbon to a GT500 Performance Package and we would hear endlessly about how the Vette is obviously better because it's faster despite the significantly higher price tag.

Compare a Shelby GT350 to a Challenger SRT8 and the GT350 loses, despite being faster, because it costs too much.

I'm seeing bias, but it isn't coming from the car magazines. I expect to see bias against the Mustang, were on a Camaro forum and it's a part of the rivalry. What I don't understand is why folks feel obliged to explain away an opinion very obviously based almost entirely, if not entirely, in bias by creating facts to suit your argument.

I don't like chocolate ice cream, I feel no need to create conjured facts explaining why chocolate ice cream is inferior, I just say I don't like it.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by syr74

Irony.

Compare a Corvette Z06 Carbon to a GT500 Performance Package and we would hear endlessly about how the Vette is obviously better because it's faster despite the significantly higher price tag.

Compare a Shelby GT350 to a Challenger SRT8 and the GT350 loses, despite being faster, because it costs too much.

I'm seeing bias, but it isn't coming from the car magazines. I expect to see bias against the Mustang, were on a Camaro forum and it's a part of the rivalry. What I don't understand is why folks feel obliged to explain away an opinion very obviously based almost entirely, if not entirely, in bias by creating facts to suit your argument.

I don't like chocolate ice cream, I feel no need to create conjured facts explaining why chocolate ice cream is inferior, I just say I don't like it.

i was thinking the same thing. both comparisons were unfair IMO.

[BigHemiSrt]

Fact is its a $80k car vs a $40k car...that is just plain stupid.

Neither cars performance numbers impressed me. I blame that on altitude and driver error.

That built 5.0 with a WHIPPLE sc put down basically the same time and mph that MT got with a bone stock $42k Boss.

[Apex Motorsports]

Originally Posted by syr74

Irony.

Compare a Corvette Z06 Carbon to a GT500 Performance Package and we would hear endlessly about how the Vette is obviously better because it's faster despite the significantly higher price tag.

Compare a Shelby GT350 to a Challenger SRT8 and the GT350 loses, despite being faster, because it costs too much.

I'm seeing bias, but it isn't coming from the car magazines. I expect to see bias against the Mustang, were on a Camaro forum and it's a part of the rivalry. What I don't understand is why folks feel obliged to explain away an opinion very obviously based almost entirely, if not entirely, in bias by creating facts to suit your argument.

I don't like chocolate ice cream, I feel no need to create conjured facts explaining why chocolate ice cream is inferior, I just say I don't like it.

The article compares a $40,000 car you can buy off the dealer's showroom floor to an $80,000 aftermarket tuner car. That strikes you as a logical comparison? The comparison you mention is equally as ridiculous due to the price disparity but at least they are both OEM cars.

[Sax1031]

The Challenger should have went up against the GT500 before the GT350.

The GT350 is pretty much a Boss 302 with a blower, well at least a GT with boss suspension and blower.

[Dmundz]

What a pointless comparison. Well done comparing a car that's worth twice the challenger.....

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by Dmundz

What a pointless comparison. Well done comparing a car that's worth twice the challenger.....

the difference between these two cars is $38k. the difference between the GT500 and Z06 in the other test was $43,000 and nobody complained when the GT500 got beat.

with that being said the GT350 is overpriced IMO.

I really wanna see the 392 Challenger get a fair crack at a loaded 2SS/RS and 5.0GT and Boss302. Hopefully that happens soon.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

at 3950lbs the gt350 is a pig of a car.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by BigHemiSrt

.... Neither cars performance numbers impressed me. I blame that on altitude and driver error.

....

corrected for altitude the challenger would run 12.77@111.6 in what looks like really good weather 52 degrees 12%humidity. i wonder what the DA was?