2020 GT500 Versus ZL1 Versus C8 Versus Hellcat - Page 401

NW-99SS · 12-24-2019, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

I had my 80 Cutlass weigh in on a truck scale we had in my town with tank of gas and a 6.6L 200R4 trans full Dual Exhaust that was the weight, my friend with an 84 Hurst Olds 5.0L was 3700 or so, not sure how they say that it is 3400.

I did look up an 80 Cutlass with the 5.7L Diesel engine I guess dry weight would be 3550lbs so mine would be close to that plus fuel I guess.

Curb weight on my Challenger is 4000lbs so I woulld say max is 500lbs vs Curb weight

The same logic applies to both cars...

The Chally is 800lbs heavier whether the cars are both wet or dry. It's a much larger car.

minn19 · 12-24-2019, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

You must have 500lbs of junk in your Cutlass, they weigh 3400lbs, or 800lbs lighter than your R/T:

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/auta_details1.php

https://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/2010...e-2D-R-T/Specs

Had a Hellcat in my garage while my professional detailer was doing paint corrections and ceramic coating to it - footprint was longer and wider than our 2014 ML350 we owned at that time. Loved the car, sounded amazing starting in a garage. They ride incredibly smooth due to the weight, and offer the most room being the largest of the 3 "pony" cars.

As you stated earlier - GM and Ford should be paying close attention to the Challenger's success. It is painfully obvious that HP and straight line racing matters more for sales than anything else in the market. I am not strictly a drag racer, so I am in the smaller percentage who prefers cars that are lighter and handle well.

They have paid attention. You get nearly the performance of the Hellcat with a ZL1 and more with the GT500 whilst them not being a two trick pony like the Challenger. The Challenger obviously wins in comfort, but only marginally in real world straight line speed. These engines are so easily modded for more power that is really a mute point.

I have nothing against Challengers and really do like the Chargers, but IMO the only reason to pick a Challenger is comfort and if you prefer that look etc.

Edit: And price also depending on discounts etc. Dodge is usually very aggressive here.

rocket403 · 12-24-2019, 04:58 PM

If I take my 80 Olds at 3600 my Challenger is 4000 so 400lbs difference in weight for my RT to Cutlass

lt4camaro · 12-24-2019, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

If I take my 80 Olds at 3600 my Challenger is 4000 so 400lbs difference in weight for my RT to Cutlass

More like 3400 versus 4200, unless the Challenger is a V6

rocket403 · 12-24-2019, 06:15 PM

If you look up a 5.7L Cutlass at 3550lbs and the weight of a 2010 RT at 4041lbs that would be 500lbs difference but I think my Olds was closer to 3700 with air conditioning.

BlaqWhole · 12-24-2019, 08:37 PM

Challengers and Chargers are selling well. But how bad does anyone here really want one and which one would you particularly buy...is the question. Anything less than the SRT8 is a waste of money. And the majority of their sales are for the 5.7 engines which are incredibly overwhelmed by the vehicle's size and weight. Even the SRT8 has a hard time moving that heft. The Hellcats and Redeyes are worth the money but when optioned they increase well over the price that most can afford. So what you're left with is a sea of V6 and 5.7 liter Challys and Chargers. They're all slow...much slower than the other entry level offerings. The non-Hellcat engines can't be supercharged unless you wanna blow out your oil rings. And the aftermarket is non-existent besides a tune, cai, and exhaust. They appeal to those who don't know what they're buying...except for Hellcat and SRT8 buyers.

rocket403 · 12-24-2019, 08:58 PM

I've had my RT for 10 years at the time it was not much different between a 6.1 and a 5.7 (375hp/425hp) the Camaro just was hitting the streets (400/426hp) and the Mustang was low on power (315hp). RT was a great buy and paid under 30k for it (New) so I could care less if it is not the fastest. Not always about being the fastest but that would be lost on Blaq.

BlaqWhole · 12-25-2019, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

I've had my RT for 10 years at the time it was not much different between a 6.1 and a 5.7 (375hp/425hp) the Camaro just was hitting the streets (400/426hp) and the Mustang was low on power (315hp). RT was a great buy and paid under 30k for it (New) so I could care less if it is not the fastest. Not always about being the fastest but that would be lost on Blaq.

Actually I agree with you. I think the Challenger non-Hellcat and non-SRT8 variants are a great buy for someone who is looking for anything other than performance. Some people don't care about stuff like performance. And it is good that there are V8s that cater to that demographic. You get the V8 sound and you can say it's a V8 but it's also roomy and comfy like an Camry and just as fast.

TreedYou · 12-25-2019, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Actually I agree with you. I think the Challenger non-Hellcat and non-SRT8 variants are a great buy for someone who is looking for anything other than performance. Some people don't care about stuff like performance. And it is good that there are V8s that cater to that demographic. You get the V8 sound and you can say it's a V8 but it's also roomy and comfy like an Camry and just as fast.

Sorry buddy if you want real performance all your cars are junk, get a top fuel dragster. How can you drive such slow cars!?

I daily drive my top fuel dragster, and because it's faster it's the better car because that is the only reason to drive cars as we both know.

lt4camaro · 12-25-2019, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

If you look up a 5.7L Cutlass at 3550lbs and the weight of a 2010 RT at 4041lbs that would be 500lbs difference but I think my Olds was closer to 3700 with air conditioning.

Thats for a diesel, the cutlass coupe with a 5.0 v8 and a/c was 3350 approx.

lt4camaro · 12-25-2019, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

If you look up a 5.7L Cutlass at 3550lbs and the weight of a 2010 RT at 4041lbs that would be 500lbs difference but I think my Olds was closer to 3700 with air conditioning.

Those cars with a/c and a V8 are around 3400 lbs

https://www.automobile-catalog.com/c...automatic.html

rocket403 · 12-25-2019, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Actually I agree with you. I think the Challenger non-Hellcat and non-SRT8 variants are a great buy for someone who is looking for anything other than performance. Some people don't care about stuff like performance. And it is good that there are V8s that cater to that demographic. You get the V8 sound and you can say it's a V8 but it's also roomy and comfy like an Camry and just as fast.

You are Just a bit of a loud mouth but every group has one and you are it,

There is always someone with a faster car and newer and better and some like you Blaq just have to have it and go and play that game, I'm good with the RT I have and it is a performance car just not to the level that are now hitting the streets. I have raced the RT and enjoy the performance that this car offers, and is faster than many of cars that are on the road.

With your analogy everyone with a 69 Camaro SS 396 or a 70 Chevelle LS6 should be getting rid of their cars because there are new cars that can beat them in a race. How shallow are you?

hotlap · 12-25-2019, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

You are Just a bit of a loud mouth but every group has one and you are it,

There is always someone with a faster car and newer and better and some like you Blaq just have to have it and go and play that game, I'm good with the RT I have and it is a performance car just not to the level that are now hitting the streets. I have raced the RT and enjoy the performance that this car offers, and is faster than many of cars that are on the road.

With your analogy everyone with a 69 Camaro SS 396 or a 70 Chevelle LS6 should be getting rid of their cars because there are new cars that can beat them in a race. How shallow are you?

Blaq agreed with you.

You have two cars that are not considered fast ...or having good performance on any measure. That’s ok. You like them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket403

I've had my RT for 10 years at the time it was not much different between a 6.1 and a 5.7 (375hp/425hp) the Camaro just was hitting the streets (400/426hp) and the Mustang was low on power (315hp). RT was a great buy and paid under 30k for it (New) so I could care less if it is not the fastest. Not always about being the fastest but that would be lost on Blaq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlaqWhole

Actually I agree with you. I think the Challenger non-Hellcat and non-SRT8 variants are a great buy for someone who is looking for anything other than performance. Some people don't care about stuff like performance. And it is good that there are V8s that cater to that demographic. You get the V8 sound and you can say it's a V8 but it's also roomy and comfy like an Camry and just as fast.

rocket403 · 12-25-2019, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotlap

Blaq agreed with you.

You have two cars that are not considered fast ...or having good performance on any measure. That’s ok. You like them.

I didn't see his comments as anything other than a jab at anyone that was not in the top of the performance food chain.

12-24-2019, 04:58 PM	#5603
rocket403 Drives: 80 Cutlass 403, 2010 FF RT Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 921	If I take my 80 Olds at 3600 my Challenger is 4000 so 400lbs difference in weight for my RT to Cutlass __________________ 2017 Ram Copperhead 2015 Chrysler 200 2010 Challenger RT FF 1998 Monte Carlo SS 1980 Cutlass Supreme 403

12-24-2019, 06:15 PM	#5605
rocket403 Drives: 80 Cutlass 403, 2010 FF RT Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 921	If you look up a 5.7L Cutlass at 3550lbs and the weight of a 2010 RT at 4041lbs that would be 500lbs difference but I think my Olds was closer to 3700 with air conditioning. __________________ 2017 Ram Copperhead 2015 Chrysler 200 2010 Challenger RT FF 1998 Monte Carlo SS 1980 Cutlass Supreme 403

12-24-2019, 08:58 PM	#5607
rocket403 Drives: 80 Cutlass 403, 2010 FF RT Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Ontario Posts: 921	I've had my RT for 10 years at the time it was not much different between a 6.1 and a 5.7 (375hp/425hp) the Camaro just was hitting the streets (400/426hp) and the Mustang was low on power (315hp). RT was a great buy and paid under 30k for it (New) so I could care less if it is not the fastest. Not always about being the fastest but that would be lost on Blaq. __________________ 2017 Ram Copperhead 2015 Chrysler 200 2010 Challenger RT FF 1998 Monte Carlo SS 1980 Cutlass Supreme 403 Last edited by rocket403; 12-24-2019 at 09:47 PM.

12-24-2019, 08:37 PM	#5606
BlaqWhole Account Suspended Drives: 2017 Camaro ZL1 A10 Join Date: May 2012 Location: NJ Posts: 7,692	Challengers and Chargers are selling well. But how bad does anyone here really want one and which one would you particularly buy...is the question. Anything less than the SRT8 is a waste of money. And the majority of their sales are for the 5.7 engines which are incredibly overwhelmed by the vehicle's size and weight. Even the SRT8 has a hard time moving that heft. The Hellcats and Redeyes are worth the money but when optioned they increase well over the price that most can afford. So what you're left with is a sea of V6 and 5.7 liter Challys and Chargers. They're all slow...much slower than the other entry level offerings. The non-Hellcat engines can't be supercharged unless you wanna blow out your oil rings. And the aftermarket is non-existent besides a tune, cai, and exhaust. They appeal to those who don't know what they're buying...except for Hellcat and SRT8 buyers.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password