Car & Driver Short Take - Dodge Challenger R/T

Discussion in 'OT Driven' started by TriShield, Mar 29, 2009.

  1. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,732
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    The R/T model trumps its SRT8 big brother in our book.

    [​IMG]

    BY DAVID GLUCKMAN
    December 2008

    The most breathless talk about the Dodge Challenger tends to center around the letters S, R, and T and the number 8. The high-po-est form of Dodge’s muscle car was the only choice offered for the initial 2008 run, and although still fun, it made do with a five-speed slushbox. Things have changed for 2009 with the addition of a 5.7-liter Hemi R/T model and a manual-transmission option for both V-8 cars. After testing an R/T, we’d be happy to sacrifice the S and 8 from the badge, especially since the R/T comes with a price that’s roughly 11 grand less.

    I’m So Happy, I Could Shift

    Big news for the Challenger is that it’s the first (modern) Hemi-powered Chrysler car with an optional manual transmission. We’re already fans of the tried-and-true Tremec TR-6060 six-speed gearbox, which is used in the Viper and many of GM’s high performers. The Challenger’s pistol-grip shifter is canted toward the driver and allows for quick shifts via relatively short throws. Clutch-pedal travel, however, is longish, with an engagement point near the top of its movement. We were also annoyed by the one-to-four skip shift that forces a two-gear upshift under light acceleration at low speed in the name of fuel economy. (Aftermarket kits are thankfully available to bypass this bothersome “feature,” but no one has yet figured out how to relocate the foot-operated parking brake.)

    The gearing is nice and short, although that necessitates two shifts to get to 60 mph, which takes 5.1 seconds. That time nearly matches the SRT8 automatic’s 4.8-second sprint; not too shabby considering the SRT’s 6.1-liter Hemi has 49 more horses and 10 more lb-ft than the 376 hp and 410 lb-ft of the R/T manual. (Did we mention that eleven grand saving?)

    Unlike in the old days of the “standard” manual transmission, this one’s an option and is included as part of a $995 package that also nets a limited-slip differential and hill start assist. Opt for the manual, and you also get a slightly altered version of the 5.7-liter Hemi, one without the cylinder deactivation and midgrade unleaded recommendation of automatic-equipped R/Ts. The plus side of the manual R/T’s appetite for premium is an additional 4 hp and 9 lb-ft of torque. Both transmissions are rated at the same 16 mpg in the city and 25 mpg on the highway. We managed an average of 15 mpg overall with our collective right foot planted through the fire wall.

    Drives Big, Is Big

    The steering is heavier than a Charger’s—the sedan with which the Challenger shares its platform—and the suspension is tuned more toward ride comfort than sport, neither of which does the car any weight-masking favor. The Challenger’s prodigious weight is possibly its biggest weakness. At 4164 pounds, the R/T outweighs a Charger R/T we tested by about 20 pounds, although it is 20 pounds lighter than the Challenger SRT8. Considering the beef, the 5.1-second 0-to-60 time is even more impressive.

    The R/T’s stoppers are solid with decent pedal feel and able to haul the Challenger’s not-inconsiderable heft down from 70 mph in 173 feet—a negligible difference when compared with the 170-foot distance afforded by the SRT8’s larger Brembos.

    The deep exhaust note beats the Charger R/T’s by a mile and is more in line with Chrysler’s SRT products. The internal sound system is upgraded for 2009, now bundling true iPod integration and a 30-gig hard drive with the optional navigation system.

    So why would someone go for the SRT8? After all, it’s costlier and not that much quicker than the R/T. Sure, it offers more standard features and horsepower bragging rights, and some might prefer the SRT’s flat-black stripes to the R/T’s blank hood or optional fender hash marks. But from a performance-per-buck standpoint, we believe the R/T provides an uncommon replacement for extra displacement.

    Specifications

    [​IMG]

    VEHICLE TYPE: front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe

    PRICE AS TESTED: $39,420 (base price: $31,540)

    ENGINE TYPE: pushrod 16-valve V-8, iron block and aluminum heads, port fuel injection

    Displacement: 345 cu in, 5654cc
    Power (SAE net): 376 bhp @ 5150 rpm
    Torque (SAE net): 410 lb-ft @ 4300 rpm
    TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

    DIMENSIONS:
    Wheelbase: 116.0 in Length: 197.7 in Width: 75.7 in Height: 57.1 in
    Curb weight: 4164 lb

    C/D TEST RESULTS:
    Zero to 60 mph: 5.1 sec
    Zero to 100 mph: 12.2 sec
    Zero to 130 mph: 22.4 sec
    Street start, 5–60 mph: 5.5 sec
    Standing ¼-mile: 13.6 sec @ 106 mph
    Braking, 70–0 mph: 173 ft

    FUEL ECONOMY:
    EPA city/highway driving: 16/25 mpg
    C/D observed: 15 mpg

    [​IMG]
     
  2. z284pwr

    z284pwr OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Fruit Heights, Utah
    That is a BIG bitches
     
  3. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,732
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    Pretty good times too.
     
  4. art_VW_shark

    art_VW_shark OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Messages:
    156,683
    Likes Received:
    179
    Location:
    Bosstown
    25mpg highway is pretty good, all things considered
     
  5. Bernout

    Bernout OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    20,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Imagine how much better acceleration and milage would be if it weighed 800 lbs less.
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2009
  6. z284pwr

    z284pwr OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Fruit Heights, Utah
    C/D observed: 15 mpg
    :hsugh:

    Thats less than Manufacture states, would take a real controlled individual to actually pull 25 MPG, high HP/TQ RWD car tends to induce a lot of fun :bowdown:
     
  7. swedishstar

    swedishstar Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Messages:
    9,716
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    TX
    They said they had their foot planted firmly against the firewall. :dunno:
     
  8. z284pwr

    z284pwr OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Fruit Heights, Utah
    Exactly the point. Most people will be about the same way. It would take a lot of control to stay off said firewall in a car like that. Would be way too tempting to blip the throttle around the corners or play zoom zoom from stop lights. Grandpa let not apply, they get on it and would probably have a heart attack :sadwavey:
     
  9. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,732
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    15mpg is what they averaged in the 2010 Mustang as well.
     
  10. insomnia

    insomnia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    46,883
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Korea
    even going to the dragstrip + sitting in line for hours i still never got below 22 mpg for a tank, that must be all track testing :rofl:
     
  11. CJPA

    CJPA New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    114,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Those are some pretty good numbers for the lead sled :cool:

    410 ft-lbs to the rescue!
     
  12. CJPA

    CJPA New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    114,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    fuck me I need a supercharger lolz ugh
     
  13. Big country

    Big country New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    34,595
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Santa Fe, Texas
    Is just me or does the SRT 8 look just a little lower.
     
  14. TriShield

    TriShield Super Moderator® Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2001
    Messages:
    132,732
    Likes Received:
    1,596
    Location:
    PRESIDENTIAL TOWER, GREAT AGAIN, NY
    It is actually a little lower.
     

Share This Page