Dodge Challenger Performance Tested......So much Horsepower So Slow!!

Edmunds does performance testing on the NON-SRT model Challengers in their latest reviews. Maybe they have a huge weight problem as its immense amount of power doesnt seem to give an edge over the mustang...or cars with much fewer horses......
Results
Challenger RT 5.7 liter 375hp.......0-60 in 5.9 seconds
Challenger SE 3.5 liter 250hp.......0-60 in 8.1 seconds

For comparison
1. Ford mustang V8: 300hp 0-60 in 5.2 seconds
2. Ford mustang V6: 210hp 0-60 in 6.5 seconds
3. Infiniti G35 330hp 0-60 in 5.5 seconds
4. BMW 335i 300hp 0-60 in 4.8 seconds
5. Pontiac G8 GT 361hp 0-60 in 5.3 seconds
6. Accord Coupe V6 268hp 0-60 in 6.3 seconds
7. Impala SS 303hp 060 in 5.7 seconds
all these cars have alot less horsepower but in the ball park with the RT Challenger or faster......the 2002 Camaro SS had 320hp and 60 in 5.0 seconds
Read Article

CRS2112 - 8/18/2008 2:25:54 PM

+10 Boost

That is pretty embarrassing! Aren't there some minivans out there that can accelerate in 8.1 seconds??

350zdon17 - 8/18/2008 2:33:27 PM

+8 Boost

yea and with a soccer mom driving with the whole team in the back

w209w114 - 8/18/2008 3:46:09 PM

+3 Boost

350Z

LOL

993Turbo - 8/19/2008 7:16:54 AM

0 Boost

Duh! 4000lbs!

hao420 - 8/19/2008 1:32:37 PM

0 Boost

As slow as hybird vehicle....

dumpsty - 8/20/2008 3:43:30 PM

+2 Boost

Shouldn't a 3500lbs car with 250hp V6 have 0-60mph times around 8.0 seconds?

I had a 300Touring (3.5L V6) that kept up with 75-80% of the vehicles on that short list. The Edmunds "test" figures seems a bit hokey-pokey to me.

bfghemicuda - 8/20/2008 8:01:55 PM

+3 Boost

Yes there also dodges

donjuan5 - 12/25/2008 11:18:49 PM

+2 Boost

OK! LOOK! I have a v6 challenger! I thought it would be very slow. Every day some fool in a maxima v6, or slow base mustang tries me! I have dusted every car that has had the nerve to try me! It's not the car, it's the driver. When im done with my upgrades it will be a monster. Im sure I could purchase a crate engine from mopar with tranny, and come out cheaper then buying a r/t on the lot. I love the car, and it's not slow. I laugh at those fools that try to get me at the light! One more thing, I found a verticle door kit for the car! GOOD IDEA?

S30GTR - 8/18/2008 3:03:12 PM

-3 Boost

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

snatchandgrab - 8/18/2008 3:12:02 PM

0 Boost

Wow

audirevolution - 8/18/2008 3:15:04 PM

+1 Boost

Very disappointing..isn't this supposed to be "American Muscle"?

supermoto - 8/18/2008 3:25:39 PM

-2 Boost

Boooo!

sector - 8/18/2008 3:34:25 PM

+2 Boost

This car all show and no go :(

Star - 8/18/2008 3:57:38 PM

+2 Boost

I feel bad for Dodge. This counts as total failure. I don't know where they are going to find buyers for these cars. What was in their mind when they were testing these cars against the competition?

JRobUSC - 8/18/2008 4:03:24 PM

+2 Boost

It's slower than a Mustang GT, which is its most direct competitor so that's bad news. FYI, all the other times you gave for other vehicles included 1-ft of rollout. Edmunds stated the figures for the R/T were 5.9s without rollout and 5.5s with it (which you have to include if you're going to compare it to all the other vehicle times). Basically it's a few tenths behind the Mustang and dead even with a G37. Still not great, but a lot better than 5.9s.

TTRaceRR - 8/20/2008 9:52:13 PM

+3 Boost

If I was a Challenger owner, I wouldn't worry too much about stock Mustang GT's. I've driven the Shelby GT on a track and it doesn't feel as fast as a big Charger R/T. The Shelby seems to run out of steam around 85 mph and really seems to lack torque at the lower RPM's. A Challenger is lighter than the Charger, has 35 more horsepower, and an extra gear to boot when you get the manual. Tests on the Charger gave it a 14.1 quarter when it first came out. The Challenger should be considerably faster. Don't expect too many owners to leave them stock either. There is plenty of potential for mods on that Hemi.

AudiNewEngland - 8/18/2008 4:04:36 PM

-9 Boost

RS4 4.3

350zdon17 - 8/18/2008 4:32:37 PM

+3 Boost

Thats great but Audi is not in this class...

ThierryHenry14 - 8/18/2008 4:47:47 PM

0 Boost

Those are horrible performance figures... Hope all the other figures were done using the same method/through the same source.

In either case, their 0-60 numbers are horrendous...

NISSANINFINITI - 8/18/2008 4:59:49 PM

0 Boost

awwwwww

Htay7500 - 8/18/2008 5:24:18 PM

-1 Boost

This car looked soo much better than the camaro, its performance killed it for me :(

kornholio - 8/18/2008 6:01:36 PM

0 Boost

This proves that the original will always be better than the imitations!

TTRaceRR - 8/18/2008 6:12:24 PM

-2 Boost

This test is BS. I've seen the larger, heavier 5.7 Charger R/T 340hp 5 speed auto run better than this, stock. As a matter of fact, I saw one run a 13.8 quarter last weekend. It sounds like those Goodyear RSA tires had trouble hooking up. (They are crap tires.) Sounds similar to the problems they had testing the original Hemi Challengers. Add that to an incompetent behind the wheel and you get your bad ET's. Edmunds is hardly a performance car tester either.

dumpsty - 8/20/2008 3:50:57 PM

0 Boost

I agree. Seems like there are a few inconsistancies with their testing methods. If anyone were to actually believe this article, they'd be sorely surprised out on the streets when try to "challange" & lose to the new Challanger in either form (V6 or V8).

chewy - 8/18/2008 6:22:27 PM

+1 Boost

You can't compare Inside Line times to magazine times. Edmunds is very inconsistent, sometimes they match the magazines, other times they are way too slow. Plus, the R/T actually gets to 60 in 5.5 seconds, that's the time that you use to compare to the magazines.

Inside Line got a time of 5.2 seconds for the SRT-8, while the print magazines got a time of about 4.8 seconds.

chewy - 8/19/2008 1:15:47 AM

+2 Boost

they probably take it easy off the line

KarzsuK - 8/18/2008 8:59:54 PM

0 Boost

ain't vo viper. but

KarzsuK - 8/18/2008 8:59:55 PM

0 Boost

ain't vo viper. but

StickShiftCamry - 8/19/2008 12:35:49 AM

0 Boost

Forgot Camry - 5.7 Sec.

StickShiftCamry - 8/19/2008 12:38:18 AM

+1 Boost

Still will get it over Mustang/Camaro because it looks nicer and Bigger.

993Turbo - 8/19/2008 7:18:17 AM

-1 Boost

They should have put four doors on it. It would have been faster. Ha, ha.

blueshirts0819 - 8/19/2008 7:56:07 AM

0 Boost

They should just call it "Dodge Challenged".

Gaybear - 8/19/2008 12:41:26 PM

-1 Boost

Not really should be "Dodge Fatloser" and I just saw one moron driving one of that last night!

mr3speed - 8/19/2008 7:08:20 PM

0 Boost

well it can lose some weight

Tonee - 8/20/2008 12:55:36 PM

0 Boost

Saw an SRT-8 not sure if they'll get these horrible numbers that regular versions get. The SRT-8 is pushing out at least 425hp. By the way the list price on the car was around $37,000 w/options came out to $41,000. However, there was a second sticker on the window that stated "limited availability" thus they tacked on a whopping $15,000 to come in at just under $60 grand. Crazy!

drake0707 - 8/21/2008 12:11:22 PM

0 Boost

Should have said, "limited reliablity"

Crash - 8/21/2008 6:41:25 PM

+1 Boost

I've driven every one of the cars listed. I've had the Mustangs on a track, and at the recent press launch in New York, I tried the Challenger on a track. All I can say is BMW 335i yes, Infiniti G35 agreed, but the rest, no thanks, I'll go for the Dodge!

In fact, at the recent launch event, Dodge brought the Mustang range with them (including the 500) for us to compare. Trust me, car companies don't do that unless they are dam sure that their's are better.

I tell you, nobody should knock the Challenger until they've driven one. Honestly, on the road it makes the Mustangs feel like the old originals (Old school and out of date).

bfghemicuda - 8/21/2008 7:35:22 PM

+1 Boost

Hes Right

challengerownage112 - 6/24/2009 8:54:24 PM

+1 Boost

I own a challenger srt-8 and I was doing 90 with the peddle one third of the way down.

challengerownage112 - 6/24/2009 8:57:49 PM

+1 Boost

so what now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

c1z_flyboy83 - 8/11/2010 10:28:44 PM

+1 Boost

i owned a 2007 mustang v6 and i burned every challenger and charger that came my way in the quarter. i now own a 2010 challenger and i must admit it is very slow compared. the challenger is a very heavy car. i just like the look. i will always be a mustang guy!

c1z_flyboy83 - 8/11/2010 10:49:12 PM

+1 Boost

the challenger is 500lbs heavier than the mustang with a smaller engine. you cant even get rubber out of the challenger like the mustang. knock it off!