Review: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
09-22-08, 06:39 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T
A review of the 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T.
http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/
In a Nutshell: Dynamite pony-car looks and nice engineering/underpinnings, but too much low-quality junk in the hardware and trim.
Most of you, of course, know that there has been enormous interest in this car with the auto press, auto writers, car-test magazines, the general auto-buying public, CL members (though I didn't get many specific requests to review it), and, of course, aging Baby Boomers like me who grew up or went to high school with the original car almost 40 years ago. And indeed, I remember the original car and its Plymouth Barracuda twin fondly....but I also remember their weaknesses, primarily junk interiors, atrociously bad quality control, and constant repairs. Chrysler engines and automatic transmissions we well-built in thse days, but almost nothing else on the cars were. Still, the original 1970 Challenger and its 1970 Barracuda twin (the 1970 was my favorite of the 1964-1974 Barracuda run) were high on my list, as a young, car-happy teen, of my favorite coupe/muscle cars of the era, especially in some of their more wild colors. However, unlike most teens, I not only also liked muscle cars, but soft-riding, big luxury cars as well.....but that's another whole story, not one for this review.
When the 1974 Barracuda and Challenger were dropped in the mid-1970's, an era of increasing emphasis on safety, gas mileage, and emissions, I, like many of the time, thought they were gone for good. Most of the muscle cars I had grown up with had been downsized, given ugly features like the huge new safety-bumpers, emasculated, and carburator-strangled to the point where they would hardly run at all. Even big-engined cars like the Camaro SS and Plymouth Road Runner were down to what had, a few years before, been economy-car power figures....and the base Road Runner, by that time, had an in-line 6 of barely over 100 HP. The Mustang had become a reskinned Pinto...its Cobra version with a wimpy little V6 that would barely get out of its own way. Not only was power stangled off but drivability.....engines started and ran, stumbling and stalling, like the gas was half-mixed with water. Cars got more and more poorly-built each year.....even GM and Ford models which had previously had good quality control. A truly disgusting time in the history of the American car which, except for my brief wrangling over it in this column, is best left forgotten.
So, let's toss out all those bad memories and concentrate on the new 2009 Challenger and how it compares to its Mustang rival and, of course, its original 1970-74 version, which mercifully died before it could be downsized and wimped out.
By CL request, I originally had the 2009 Acura TL down as the next scheduled review, but Acura dealers in my area here have been slow to get the 2009 model......it has not come in as quickly as other 2009 Acuras. So, now it looks like another week or two for them...maybe early October. In the meantime, as I was driving by a local Dodge dealer just a few miles from my house when....what do you know......there's two Challenger R/T's sitting right out there next to the street....a gray one and an orange one. These cars are hard to find (Dodge is building just 6400 Challengers this year), and, when I stopped to look at them, even more remarkable, they were unsold and untaken. Well, right there, on the spot, I knew I had to do a review.......and jumped at the chance.
Ordinarily the dealership wasn't letting them out for test drives, but when they saw that I was a mature, responsible person (some young kids like to take pony cars out and tear them up like they are on a race track) and found out I write reviews for CL, they were happy to give me at least a limited test-drive. I couldn't keep it out quite as long as I would have liked, but, given the car's high demand, low supply, and the understandable reluctance by dealers to see a lot of miles racked up on them, I agreed to a somewhat abbreviated test-drive. Still, I had the car out long enough, and got a good enough feel of how it drove, to do a credible review.
The modern Challenger re-incarnation is based, like the sister Magnum (now dropped) and Charger, on a RWD platform derived from the Mercedes E-Class, planned and engineered back when Mercedes owned Chrysler. The Challenger version, being a shorter 2-door coupe vs. the longer Charger and Magnum 4-doors, is done on a slightly shortened version of that platform, which also includes a Mercedes-derived 5-speed automatic transmission (dating from before the days when Mercedes switched to 7-speed automatics), and a Mercedes-derived suspension.....one reason for the car's generally good roadability, also shared with the Charger and Magnum (more on that below).
For 2009, two basic versions of the Challenger are offered.....R/T and SRT, both with RWD only. Dodge marketers felt, and I agree (one of the few times that I EVER agree with bozo auto marketers), that an AWD option, like on the Charger/Magnum, would be out of place on a classic pony car like this. The R/T comes with the 5.7L Dodge/Chrysler Hemi V8, used in several of its other products, and the SRT-8 comes with a larger 6.1L Hemi version with slightly higher power ratings (not high enough, IMO, to justify its substantially higher price.....more on that below). The 5.7L version has a cylinder-decoupling feature which (supposedly) gives you better mileage at cruise at moderate speeds and throttle settings; the engineers were not able, for packaging reasons, to incorporate that feature in the larger 6.2L. Both engines come with a choice of a 6-speed manual of the aforementioned, Mercedes-derived, 5-speed Sport-Shift automatic. A large list of options and packages is offered for either version, as well as different body graphics. Cloth or leather seats, in packages, are offered, and a two-tone black/gray leather seat option. Next year, a third, lower-priced and decontented Challenger SE model, with a 3.5L V6 and Chrysler-designed 4-speed automatic will join its two more expensive brothers.
This car, needless to say, brought back quite a few memories for me, if well-modified ones, and I had some rather strong feelings about how Dodge did this car, inside and out....but I couldn't just dwell on my high-school memories. Like all of my reviews, I had to judge the car in terms of what you were getting for your money TODAY, not 40 years ago. Some things on it were good to the point of being superb, like the brakes, smooth engine, and overall chassis refinement. Others brought back a lot of the weaknesses of the original version, like second-rate interior quality, sheet metal, and a stuffed-sardine can underhood. But, in all fairnes, it is just about impossible for a Baby Boomer like me, who went to high school with the original one, to avoid the inevitable comparisons between new and old, so like I did with the Mustang GT, you will indeed find some of those comparisons below.
Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T (F package)
Base Price: $29.995 (Includes freight)
Major Options:
Virtually every factory option available with the R/T F package.
I won't list them all here...dozens of them. They are too numerous.
Destination/Freight: N/C
List price as reviewed: $37,245
Drivetrain: RWD, Longitudinal-mounted 5.7L VVT Hemi V8 with 4-cylinder deactivation feature, 372 HP @ 5800 RPM, Torque, 400 Ft-lbs. @ 4200 RPM, 5-speed automatic with Autostick Sport-Shift.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 16 City, 25 Highway
Exterior Color: Dark Titanium Metallic
Interior: Dark Gray (virtually black) Royale Leather
PLUSSES:
Superb, classic 70s Challenger exterior looks.
Smooth, torquey Hemi V8.
Smooth, well-done automatic transmission.
Firm but not harsh or uncomfortable ride.
Positive, but not overly-quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Superlative, right-now, BMW-like brake-pedal feel.
Handsome, 5-spoke wheels.
Large, roomy trunk by pony-car standards.
Rear seats fold down for added cargo space.
Some nice paint colors....but several of the classic 1970 colors are missing.
Clear, attractive gauges and control markings.
Fairly comfortable/supportive seats.
Nice stereo sound quality.
Easy-to-use climate control.
Nice imitation carbon-fiber trim inside.
Slick, racing-stype, flip-gas cap.
Lifetime, non-transferable powertrain warranty (not available on SRT-8).
Inferno Red paint not extra cost like on other Chrysler produsts.
89 Octane recommended but will run on 87.
MINUSES:
Flimsy body sheet metal.
Overpriced graphic-tape packages.
Cheap hood prop-rod.
Poor underhood layout.
Overly-tight engine fit.
Insultingly cheap, flimsy interior plastic and hardware.
Wobbly dash ***** and steering-column stalks.
Standard parts-bin Dodge steering wheel not up to the original Challenger's.
Nasal, overly loud exhaust much like that of Mustang GT.
Limited rear visibility with large C-Pillars.
Poorly-finished trunk.
Optional temporary spare tire.
Awkwardly-designed emergency trunk-release handle.
Demand currently exceeds supply; good deals may be hard to get.
Insurance premiums may be steep for some people.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to this car, like with the current-generation Mustang, there is no mistaking it for anything else on the road.....style-wise, this is a Challenger, through and through. One look at this car takes me back to 1970...and my senior year in high school, with its carefree driving fun (I had fun, but still drove safe and responsibly), uncluttered roads, unspoiled scenery, and the distinct personality of the cars back then. Dodge and Ford, of course, cannot bring back the pleasant driving conditions or our youth, but they have sure brought back the looks, at least to some extent. The only things that really separate the 2009 Challenger, looks-wise, from the 1970-74 models are the chrome bumpers, hood pins, and higher-profile tires of the original Challengers, missing from the new one. Otherwise, the similiarities are remarkable. The original car had rather poor-quality sheet metal, Super-El-Cheapo plastic interior, atrociously bad assembly quality, and a crude paint job.
(You had to see how badly Chrysler products were built, back in those days, to believe it....sometimes dozens of assembly goofs on a single car, squeaks and rattles everywhere, and sometimes pieces literally falling off. The only things that they could really do well, and they did it superbly, was the durability of the engines and the Torqueflite automatic transmission)
So....back to today's Challenger. Like the original, the sheet metal, though gorgeous to look at, style-wise, leaves quite a bit to be desired. All of the major body parts have a rather thin, flimsy feel, and the hood, doors, and trunk lid all shut with a tinny "clink" sound and a light feel. Exterior hardware, except for the reasonably solid-feeling, swiveling outside mirrors (better than average, BTW, for an American design), was not impressive. The paint job, with the benefit of modern clearcoat and robot-spray guns, is worlds better than the dull-finish, slopped-on-paint and orange-peel texture of 1970, though still a ways off from the superb standards of today's Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, and Infiniti paint jobs. Dodge has given the new Challenger some nice colors that will open your eyes a little, like the brilliant and gorgeous B5 Blue, which is like the Mazda Miata's old Mariner Blue, the Hemi Orange, the Tor Red (an original 1970 color), and the gorgeous Inferno Red, which is like the equally gorgeous Matador Red used on the Lexus GS and IS. And none of the Challenger colors are extra cost...they all come with the base price, even the Inferno Red, which is extra on some other Chrysler products. I do wish, however, they would bring back my two favorite 1970 Challenger colors, the Tor Lime (Green) and my all-time favorite, the classic violet-purple Plum Crazy (yes, they were extra-cost in 1970).
The new Challenger, like the original, also offers flat-black tape graphics on the body, but, IMO, the pricing for it is absurd. My car, for example, had a $200 "Tape/Body" package on the front fenders that was nothing but a couple of pieces of automotive blackout tape that you could buy in an auto-parts store for a dollar or two, cut and shape them yourself, and stick on in a couple of minutes (yes, I've done it on some of the cars I've owned, for various reasons). There are several different black-tape patterns offered by the factory, depending on trim line and option.
And, the Challenger's 1970's-boxy styling, with its inherent space efficiency, also helps out some with interior and trunk room......more on that below. That's something that too many automakers today have forgotten about, with their obsession in making everything bullet-shaped for aerodynamics. All of the factory wheel options (there are several) are handsome, classic, 5-spoke American mag-type, more or less like on the Pontiac G8 GT.
UNDERHOOD:
Open up the 1970's - style hood with built-in scoops (it lacks the twin hood-pins of the original), and the big 5.7L Hemi is stuffed in like a sardine, with virtually no clearance for anything. The hood scoops, of course, are not functional on the R/T because, being fuel-injected, it lacks the quad, dual-quad, and triple-deuce carburator setups of the original 440 and 426 Hemis of 1970. The hood itself is done in a flimsy, lightweight material. I couldn't tell if it was plastic, fiberglass, or aluminum, and it lacks hold-up struts....one must fumble with a cheap, simple, prop-rod in this $37,000 car. The hood has a rather thin insulation pad underneath, but nevertheless it seemed effective in holding down the actual engine noise. Exhaust noise, however, was another matter......more on that below.
The Hemi has, like many upmarket engines nowadays, a big two-tone gray plastic cover which covers everything on top of the engine but a couple of holes/cutouts for dipsticks and the oil filler cap. The Hemi is a big (by today's standards) piece of engine, and fills up even the Challenger's 1970's-boxy, relatively space-efficient underhood area to the point where it is almost impossible to do anything other than a few simple fluid services and reservoir checks (A true retro here.....this was also the case with the enormous 426 and 440 engines of 1970 as well, but those engines didn't have the annoying plastic cover that blocked out their tops). Other plastic covers and panels, on the sides of the engine, hide those components underneath as well. The battery? Look for it under the trunk....more on that later.
INTERIOR:
Except for the fairly comfortable/supportive seats, nice white gauges, and classy carbon-fiber imitation around the shifter, dash screen, and door-pulls, I found the interior to be a major disappointment.....one of the car's worst features (again, the same with the poorly-finished 1970 interior). There were acres of cheap, flimsy, black plastic everywhere on the dash and door panels, a four-spoke, parts-bin Dodge steering wheel with buttons instead of a proper, traditional Challenger three-spoke, and, except for the nice carbon-fiber trim and chrome rings on the *****, a gross lack of interior fit-and-finish (yes, a true Challenger). The three rotary climate-control *****, despite their nice chrome trim rings, wobbled in your hand and felt loosely attached...like they were ready to fall off (I have also, to be fair, criticized similiar poor-quality ***** and interior plastics in some present-generation Toyotas). Ditto for the even worse-feeling turn-signal and cruise-control stalks on the steering column...they likewise were overly-cheap, flimsy plastic. The seat leather was OK, but you still know you aren't in a Lexus or Jaguar. The ultra-wide C-pillars in back (just like on the original car), block a large chunk of your rear visibility. Almost all of the other buttons/controls, and hardware also had a poorer-than-average, flimsy feel.
However, there are some fairly nice things inside as well. Where the original 1970 car had matte-finish imitation wood across the dash and gauges (which I liked), the new car, instead, has, as I mentioned before, some equally nice, grained carbon-fiber trim on the console, mid-dash, and door pulls instead. The rather boxy 1970's styling and roofline helps with some of the interior space efficiency.....headroom and legroom, front and back, is a little better than what you would expect for this type of car, even with a sunroof, and the small back seats, while tight by front-seat standards, aren't quite as cramped as with some other cars of this type. For one thing, this car is WIDE by modern small coupe standards, and if the rear-seat occupant desires, he/she can sit with legs out to the side at an angle for more legroom, provided no one else is back there. I also liked the stereo's sound quality and the clear, white gauges, laid out in roughly the same 4-tunnel/circle, left-to-right display of the original car, though in the opposite white color instead of the original black ones. In the original car, the four gauge-tunnels were all equal-size; in the new one, the two center gauges (speedometer and tach) are somewhat larger than the outer ones (fuel and temperature).
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open up the rather flimsy-feeling trunk lid, and the trunk area itself is big and quite roomy, especially by pony-car standards. Part of that is due to the retro-boxy shape of the rear-end styling and the mininal rake/sweepdown of the rear roofline, which clearly helps space efficiency. Many newer cars have lost this space efficiency in back because of the current obsession with bullet-shaped styling and aero-rooflines....the Challenger, with its 1970's styling, gets back to basics.
Unfortunately, the trunk, like the original one of almost 40 years ago, is rather poorly-finished inside....and even that includes an optional "Trunk Dress-Up" package. Thin, flat, rough gray carpet covers the floor, and an even thinner fabric covers the side walls. The optional ($100) temporary spare tire (presumably, no spare at all is standard in this 30k-plus car) occupies the usual spot under the rear trunk floor, along with the car's battery....there is little room up front for the battery with the big Hemi stuffed in. There is the Federally-required child-safety-pull emergency handle for the trunk release inside if Junior gets trapped, but it is mounted at an odd, 90-degree, sideways-left angle that a child in fear and distress would probably find very difficult to locate by feel and pull. This seems to be a case of meeting the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 5.7L Hemi with a plastic, engine START/STOP button.......IF it works correctly. The one in my test car didn't. I tried it several times; so did the salespeople. It would light up the dash warning lights and trigger the computer, but not actually start the car. So, we just popped the plastic button cover off with the plastic extendable "key", inserted the key into the emergency plastic ignition hole under the button, and started it up the old-fashioned way.
Once running, the Hemi was ultra-smooth, but not quiet.....a nasal, Mustang GT-like exhaust chuffle made itself quite known, even with the windows up. As expected from an engine like this, it will more than get out of its own way. Even with the automatic transmission and A/C going, the 400 ft-lbs of torque gives you a healthy shove in the back. Peak torque comes at 4000 RPM, but it starts coming on substantially before that. The cylinder-deactivation feature, at cruise in higher gears, worked seamlessly enough that I couldn't really detect it....this modern, electronic deactivation system should also be considerably more reliable than the horendous, mechanically-based one that Cadillac used back in the early 1980's.....some of you older guys, I'm sure, will remember that one.
The Mercedes-derived 5-speed automatic transmission, originally a spinoff of those used in the previous-generation E-Classes, was one of the car's better features. It was smooth, seamless (at least the way I drove it), quiet, positive, and came with the Mercedes/Chrysler Autostick feature, which allows manual shifts with the lever from side-to-side rather than the usual fore-aft motion. A more-or-less 1970's style pistol-grip shift handle is an option, but, from the literature, appears to be restricted to the SRT-8.
Handling, from the (also) Mercedes-derived chassis/suspension is positive, with smooth steering feedback, and response is fairly but not overly-quick. There is little body roll (the SRT can be expected to have even less), and the cornering stance, as expected, is basically flat. Unlike the live-axle Mustang GT (higher-level Cobra-Mustangs get an IRS), the Challenger's chassis, being Mercedes-derived, has an independent rear suspension/axle, which, of course, that gives it a little more sophistication in the ride/handling department than lower-level Mustangs. But Ford used a live rear axle on the Mustang GT for a reason.....besides the obvious lower cost of production and simpler service/repair, a live axle is more durable and resistant to self-destruction from abuse and tire-smoking burnouts than independent rear ends. And you KNOW that the average Challenger R/T owner is going to do a burnout now and then, just like Mustangs. Dodge, to some extent, recitifies this with a lifetime power-train warranty for the R/T. (Sorry, folks, the SRT-8 doesn't get that lifetime warranty).
Braking feel through the pedal, with its 4-piston calipers, is right-now superlative...about as close to zero sponginess as I've experienced on a street car. Only some BMWs can compare with it. The SRT comes with Brembos, which are not available on the R/T, but IMO, these brakes are so pleasant to use that, even if they don't stop quite as short as the Brembos, that you probably, in most cases, won't notice the difference.
Road and tire noise, despite the rather thin body sheet metal, is generally well-snubbed, as is wind noise. As mentioned earlier, the drivetrain itself is fairly quiet, except for the (IMO) louder-than-necessary exhaust.
THE VERDICT:
Like Ford with its current-generation Mustang, Dodge has succeeded in basically re-creating the looks, in a slightly modernized form, of its original muscle-car-era ancestor....yes, even down to the poorly-finished interior and trunk of the original one as well. And, like the current Mustang, I think it's safe to say that this car certainly has dynamite looks, at least on the outside. However, Dodge, like Ford, skimped badly on the Challenger's sheet metal and interior trim/hardware quality.....both cars are classic cases of bean-counter cost cutting, though the Challenger's carbon-fiber trim is not bad.
So the question arises.....is this car worth what it costs? My admittedly loaded version ran over 37K, but had virtually every option. Dealers seem to be taking advantage of the low production numbers and hard-to-get availability to order loaded models for maximum profit. You could maybe special-order a cheaper, stripped version...but be prepared to wait for it. Next year, lower-cost V6 versions will also be available.....Dodge has not yet put them into production.
So, what do you get for your money? Well, as I stated above, a pretty nice, Mercedes-engineered chassis, transmission, and brakes....all very well- done, especially the brakes. A powerful, smooth V8 with a seamless cylinder-deactivation feature and the ability, in a pinch, to use 87 Octane. Looks that will make you (along with the Mustang GT) Co-Kings of the Friday Night car-club scene.
But, inside, you have to put up with insultingly cheap plastic trim, hardware, and stalks. A loud exhaust constantly assaults your ears. A high-powered, RWD layout like this, with low-profile tires, is best left off of slick roads in the winter....make sure you have a Subaru on the side. Gas mileage, while not the worst available, will not win any economy runs, even with the de-activated cylinders at cruise. And your friendly insurance agent, especially if you are young and/or your driving record is not spotlessly clean, may find excuses for you to fork over those $$$$$ for your premium.
So only you, as a car shopper, can decide if this car is right for you, or if it is worth the $$$$$ it costs. For me, the answer is a clear no, despite its nostalgic links to my high-school years. However, a case can be made that the R/T may be a better deal than the even more expensive SRT Challenger, which starts at almost $42,000, and doesn't really have that much more power, especially in the all-important torque figure for acceleration....though I can't say that with 100% certainty because I haven't driven an SRT-8.
Last, the big ace-in-the-hole, of course, will be Chevy's new up-and-coming retro Camaro, due out next year in RS and SS versions. It will join the Mustang and Challenger in the back-to-the-Sixties game of retro-pony cars, and, of course, only time will tell how it will stack up against its two competitors. Yes..........I'll be ready to review it when it arrives.
http://www.dodge.com/en/2009/challenger/
In a Nutshell: Dynamite pony-car looks and nice engineering/underpinnings, but too much low-quality junk in the hardware and trim.
Most of you, of course, know that there has been enormous interest in this car with the auto press, auto writers, car-test magazines, the general auto-buying public, CL members (though I didn't get many specific requests to review it), and, of course, aging Baby Boomers like me who grew up or went to high school with the original car almost 40 years ago. And indeed, I remember the original car and its Plymouth Barracuda twin fondly....but I also remember their weaknesses, primarily junk interiors, atrociously bad quality control, and constant repairs. Chrysler engines and automatic transmissions we well-built in thse days, but almost nothing else on the cars were. Still, the original 1970 Challenger and its 1970 Barracuda twin (the 1970 was my favorite of the 1964-1974 Barracuda run) were high on my list, as a young, car-happy teen, of my favorite coupe/muscle cars of the era, especially in some of their more wild colors. However, unlike most teens, I not only also liked muscle cars, but soft-riding, big luxury cars as well.....but that's another whole story, not one for this review.
When the 1974 Barracuda and Challenger were dropped in the mid-1970's, an era of increasing emphasis on safety, gas mileage, and emissions, I, like many of the time, thought they were gone for good. Most of the muscle cars I had grown up with had been downsized, given ugly features like the huge new safety-bumpers, emasculated, and carburator-strangled to the point where they would hardly run at all. Even big-engined cars like the Camaro SS and Plymouth Road Runner were down to what had, a few years before, been economy-car power figures....and the base Road Runner, by that time, had an in-line 6 of barely over 100 HP. The Mustang had become a reskinned Pinto...its Cobra version with a wimpy little V6 that would barely get out of its own way. Not only was power stangled off but drivability.....engines started and ran, stumbling and stalling, like the gas was half-mixed with water. Cars got more and more poorly-built each year.....even GM and Ford models which had previously had good quality control. A truly disgusting time in the history of the American car which, except for my brief wrangling over it in this column, is best left forgotten.
So, let's toss out all those bad memories and concentrate on the new 2009 Challenger and how it compares to its Mustang rival and, of course, its original 1970-74 version, which mercifully died before it could be downsized and wimped out.
By CL request, I originally had the 2009 Acura TL down as the next scheduled review, but Acura dealers in my area here have been slow to get the 2009 model......it has not come in as quickly as other 2009 Acuras. So, now it looks like another week or two for them...maybe early October. In the meantime, as I was driving by a local Dodge dealer just a few miles from my house when....what do you know......there's two Challenger R/T's sitting right out there next to the street....a gray one and an orange one. These cars are hard to find (Dodge is building just 6400 Challengers this year), and, when I stopped to look at them, even more remarkable, they were unsold and untaken. Well, right there, on the spot, I knew I had to do a review.......and jumped at the chance.
Ordinarily the dealership wasn't letting them out for test drives, but when they saw that I was a mature, responsible person (some young kids like to take pony cars out and tear them up like they are on a race track) and found out I write reviews for CL, they were happy to give me at least a limited test-drive. I couldn't keep it out quite as long as I would have liked, but, given the car's high demand, low supply, and the understandable reluctance by dealers to see a lot of miles racked up on them, I agreed to a somewhat abbreviated test-drive. Still, I had the car out long enough, and got a good enough feel of how it drove, to do a credible review.
The modern Challenger re-incarnation is based, like the sister Magnum (now dropped) and Charger, on a RWD platform derived from the Mercedes E-Class, planned and engineered back when Mercedes owned Chrysler. The Challenger version, being a shorter 2-door coupe vs. the longer Charger and Magnum 4-doors, is done on a slightly shortened version of that platform, which also includes a Mercedes-derived 5-speed automatic transmission (dating from before the days when Mercedes switched to 7-speed automatics), and a Mercedes-derived suspension.....one reason for the car's generally good roadability, also shared with the Charger and Magnum (more on that below).
For 2009, two basic versions of the Challenger are offered.....R/T and SRT, both with RWD only. Dodge marketers felt, and I agree (one of the few times that I EVER agree with bozo auto marketers), that an AWD option, like on the Charger/Magnum, would be out of place on a classic pony car like this. The R/T comes with the 5.7L Dodge/Chrysler Hemi V8, used in several of its other products, and the SRT-8 comes with a larger 6.1L Hemi version with slightly higher power ratings (not high enough, IMO, to justify its substantially higher price.....more on that below). The 5.7L version has a cylinder-decoupling feature which (supposedly) gives you better mileage at cruise at moderate speeds and throttle settings; the engineers were not able, for packaging reasons, to incorporate that feature in the larger 6.2L. Both engines come with a choice of a 6-speed manual of the aforementioned, Mercedes-derived, 5-speed Sport-Shift automatic. A large list of options and packages is offered for either version, as well as different body graphics. Cloth or leather seats, in packages, are offered, and a two-tone black/gray leather seat option. Next year, a third, lower-priced and decontented Challenger SE model, with a 3.5L V6 and Chrysler-designed 4-speed automatic will join its two more expensive brothers.
This car, needless to say, brought back quite a few memories for me, if well-modified ones, and I had some rather strong feelings about how Dodge did this car, inside and out....but I couldn't just dwell on my high-school memories. Like all of my reviews, I had to judge the car in terms of what you were getting for your money TODAY, not 40 years ago. Some things on it were good to the point of being superb, like the brakes, smooth engine, and overall chassis refinement. Others brought back a lot of the weaknesses of the original version, like second-rate interior quality, sheet metal, and a stuffed-sardine can underhood. But, in all fairnes, it is just about impossible for a Baby Boomer like me, who went to high school with the original one, to avoid the inevitable comparisons between new and old, so like I did with the Mustang GT, you will indeed find some of those comparisons below.
Details coming up.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Dodge Challenger R/T (F package)
Base Price: $29.995 (Includes freight)
Major Options:
Virtually every factory option available with the R/T F package.
I won't list them all here...dozens of them. They are too numerous.
Destination/Freight: N/C
List price as reviewed: $37,245
Drivetrain: RWD, Longitudinal-mounted 5.7L VVT Hemi V8 with 4-cylinder deactivation feature, 372 HP @ 5800 RPM, Torque, 400 Ft-lbs. @ 4200 RPM, 5-speed automatic with Autostick Sport-Shift.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 16 City, 25 Highway
Exterior Color: Dark Titanium Metallic
Interior: Dark Gray (virtually black) Royale Leather
PLUSSES:
Superb, classic 70s Challenger exterior looks.
Smooth, torquey Hemi V8.
Smooth, well-done automatic transmission.
Firm but not harsh or uncomfortable ride.
Positive, but not overly-quick steering response.
Flat cornering.
Superlative, right-now, BMW-like brake-pedal feel.
Handsome, 5-spoke wheels.
Large, roomy trunk by pony-car standards.
Rear seats fold down for added cargo space.
Some nice paint colors....but several of the classic 1970 colors are missing.
Clear, attractive gauges and control markings.
Fairly comfortable/supportive seats.
Nice stereo sound quality.
Easy-to-use climate control.
Nice imitation carbon-fiber trim inside.
Slick, racing-stype, flip-gas cap.
Lifetime, non-transferable powertrain warranty (not available on SRT-8).
Inferno Red paint not extra cost like on other Chrysler produsts.
89 Octane recommended but will run on 87.
MINUSES:
Flimsy body sheet metal.
Overpriced graphic-tape packages.
Cheap hood prop-rod.
Poor underhood layout.
Overly-tight engine fit.
Insultingly cheap, flimsy interior plastic and hardware.
Wobbly dash ***** and steering-column stalks.
Standard parts-bin Dodge steering wheel not up to the original Challenger's.
Nasal, overly loud exhaust much like that of Mustang GT.
Limited rear visibility with large C-Pillars.
Poorly-finished trunk.
Optional temporary spare tire.
Awkwardly-designed emergency trunk-release handle.
Demand currently exceeds supply; good deals may be hard to get.
Insurance premiums may be steep for some people.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to this car, like with the current-generation Mustang, there is no mistaking it for anything else on the road.....style-wise, this is a Challenger, through and through. One look at this car takes me back to 1970...and my senior year in high school, with its carefree driving fun (I had fun, but still drove safe and responsibly), uncluttered roads, unspoiled scenery, and the distinct personality of the cars back then. Dodge and Ford, of course, cannot bring back the pleasant driving conditions or our youth, but they have sure brought back the looks, at least to some extent. The only things that really separate the 2009 Challenger, looks-wise, from the 1970-74 models are the chrome bumpers, hood pins, and higher-profile tires of the original Challengers, missing from the new one. Otherwise, the similiarities are remarkable. The original car had rather poor-quality sheet metal, Super-El-Cheapo plastic interior, atrociously bad assembly quality, and a crude paint job.
(You had to see how badly Chrysler products were built, back in those days, to believe it....sometimes dozens of assembly goofs on a single car, squeaks and rattles everywhere, and sometimes pieces literally falling off. The only things that they could really do well, and they did it superbly, was the durability of the engines and the Torqueflite automatic transmission)
So....back to today's Challenger. Like the original, the sheet metal, though gorgeous to look at, style-wise, leaves quite a bit to be desired. All of the major body parts have a rather thin, flimsy feel, and the hood, doors, and trunk lid all shut with a tinny "clink" sound and a light feel. Exterior hardware, except for the reasonably solid-feeling, swiveling outside mirrors (better than average, BTW, for an American design), was not impressive. The paint job, with the benefit of modern clearcoat and robot-spray guns, is worlds better than the dull-finish, slopped-on-paint and orange-peel texture of 1970, though still a ways off from the superb standards of today's Toyota/Lexus, Honda/Acura, and Infiniti paint jobs. Dodge has given the new Challenger some nice colors that will open your eyes a little, like the brilliant and gorgeous B5 Blue, which is like the Mazda Miata's old Mariner Blue, the Hemi Orange, the Tor Red (an original 1970 color), and the gorgeous Inferno Red, which is like the equally gorgeous Matador Red used on the Lexus GS and IS. And none of the Challenger colors are extra cost...they all come with the base price, even the Inferno Red, which is extra on some other Chrysler products. I do wish, however, they would bring back my two favorite 1970 Challenger colors, the Tor Lime (Green) and my all-time favorite, the classic violet-purple Plum Crazy (yes, they were extra-cost in 1970).
The new Challenger, like the original, also offers flat-black tape graphics on the body, but, IMO, the pricing for it is absurd. My car, for example, had a $200 "Tape/Body" package on the front fenders that was nothing but a couple of pieces of automotive blackout tape that you could buy in an auto-parts store for a dollar or two, cut and shape them yourself, and stick on in a couple of minutes (yes, I've done it on some of the cars I've owned, for various reasons). There are several different black-tape patterns offered by the factory, depending on trim line and option.
And, the Challenger's 1970's-boxy styling, with its inherent space efficiency, also helps out some with interior and trunk room......more on that below. That's something that too many automakers today have forgotten about, with their obsession in making everything bullet-shaped for aerodynamics. All of the factory wheel options (there are several) are handsome, classic, 5-spoke American mag-type, more or less like on the Pontiac G8 GT.
UNDERHOOD:
Open up the 1970's - style hood with built-in scoops (it lacks the twin hood-pins of the original), and the big 5.7L Hemi is stuffed in like a sardine, with virtually no clearance for anything. The hood scoops, of course, are not functional on the R/T because, being fuel-injected, it lacks the quad, dual-quad, and triple-deuce carburator setups of the original 440 and 426 Hemis of 1970. The hood itself is done in a flimsy, lightweight material. I couldn't tell if it was plastic, fiberglass, or aluminum, and it lacks hold-up struts....one must fumble with a cheap, simple, prop-rod in this $37,000 car. The hood has a rather thin insulation pad underneath, but nevertheless it seemed effective in holding down the actual engine noise. Exhaust noise, however, was another matter......more on that below.
The Hemi has, like many upmarket engines nowadays, a big two-tone gray plastic cover which covers everything on top of the engine but a couple of holes/cutouts for dipsticks and the oil filler cap. The Hemi is a big (by today's standards) piece of engine, and fills up even the Challenger's 1970's-boxy, relatively space-efficient underhood area to the point where it is almost impossible to do anything other than a few simple fluid services and reservoir checks (A true retro here.....this was also the case with the enormous 426 and 440 engines of 1970 as well, but those engines didn't have the annoying plastic cover that blocked out their tops). Other plastic covers and panels, on the sides of the engine, hide those components underneath as well. The battery? Look for it under the trunk....more on that later.
INTERIOR:
Except for the fairly comfortable/supportive seats, nice white gauges, and classy carbon-fiber imitation around the shifter, dash screen, and door-pulls, I found the interior to be a major disappointment.....one of the car's worst features (again, the same with the poorly-finished 1970 interior). There were acres of cheap, flimsy, black plastic everywhere on the dash and door panels, a four-spoke, parts-bin Dodge steering wheel with buttons instead of a proper, traditional Challenger three-spoke, and, except for the nice carbon-fiber trim and chrome rings on the *****, a gross lack of interior fit-and-finish (yes, a true Challenger). The three rotary climate-control *****, despite their nice chrome trim rings, wobbled in your hand and felt loosely attached...like they were ready to fall off (I have also, to be fair, criticized similiar poor-quality ***** and interior plastics in some present-generation Toyotas). Ditto for the even worse-feeling turn-signal and cruise-control stalks on the steering column...they likewise were overly-cheap, flimsy plastic. The seat leather was OK, but you still know you aren't in a Lexus or Jaguar. The ultra-wide C-pillars in back (just like on the original car), block a large chunk of your rear visibility. Almost all of the other buttons/controls, and hardware also had a poorer-than-average, flimsy feel.
However, there are some fairly nice things inside as well. Where the original 1970 car had matte-finish imitation wood across the dash and gauges (which I liked), the new car, instead, has, as I mentioned before, some equally nice, grained carbon-fiber trim on the console, mid-dash, and door pulls instead. The rather boxy 1970's styling and roofline helps with some of the interior space efficiency.....headroom and legroom, front and back, is a little better than what you would expect for this type of car, even with a sunroof, and the small back seats, while tight by front-seat standards, aren't quite as cramped as with some other cars of this type. For one thing, this car is WIDE by modern small coupe standards, and if the rear-seat occupant desires, he/she can sit with legs out to the side at an angle for more legroom, provided no one else is back there. I also liked the stereo's sound quality and the clear, white gauges, laid out in roughly the same 4-tunnel/circle, left-to-right display of the original car, though in the opposite white color instead of the original black ones. In the original car, the four gauge-tunnels were all equal-size; in the new one, the two center gauges (speedometer and tach) are somewhat larger than the outer ones (fuel and temperature).
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Open up the rather flimsy-feeling trunk lid, and the trunk area itself is big and quite roomy, especially by pony-car standards. Part of that is due to the retro-boxy shape of the rear-end styling and the mininal rake/sweepdown of the rear roofline, which clearly helps space efficiency. Many newer cars have lost this space efficiency in back because of the current obsession with bullet-shaped styling and aero-rooflines....the Challenger, with its 1970's styling, gets back to basics.
Unfortunately, the trunk, like the original one of almost 40 years ago, is rather poorly-finished inside....and even that includes an optional "Trunk Dress-Up" package. Thin, flat, rough gray carpet covers the floor, and an even thinner fabric covers the side walls. The optional ($100) temporary spare tire (presumably, no spare at all is standard in this 30k-plus car) occupies the usual spot under the rear trunk floor, along with the car's battery....there is little room up front for the battery with the big Hemi stuffed in. There is the Federally-required child-safety-pull emergency handle for the trunk release inside if Junior gets trapped, but it is mounted at an odd, 90-degree, sideways-left angle that a child in fear and distress would probably find very difficult to locate by feel and pull. This seems to be a case of meeting the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 5.7L Hemi with a plastic, engine START/STOP button.......IF it works correctly. The one in my test car didn't. I tried it several times; so did the salespeople. It would light up the dash warning lights and trigger the computer, but not actually start the car. So, we just popped the plastic button cover off with the plastic extendable "key", inserted the key into the emergency plastic ignition hole under the button, and started it up the old-fashioned way.
Once running, the Hemi was ultra-smooth, but not quiet.....a nasal, Mustang GT-like exhaust chuffle made itself quite known, even with the windows up. As expected from an engine like this, it will more than get out of its own way. Even with the automatic transmission and A/C going, the 400 ft-lbs of torque gives you a healthy shove in the back. Peak torque comes at 4000 RPM, but it starts coming on substantially before that. The cylinder-deactivation feature, at cruise in higher gears, worked seamlessly enough that I couldn't really detect it....this modern, electronic deactivation system should also be considerably more reliable than the horendous, mechanically-based one that Cadillac used back in the early 1980's.....some of you older guys, I'm sure, will remember that one.
The Mercedes-derived 5-speed automatic transmission, originally a spinoff of those used in the previous-generation E-Classes, was one of the car's better features. It was smooth, seamless (at least the way I drove it), quiet, positive, and came with the Mercedes/Chrysler Autostick feature, which allows manual shifts with the lever from side-to-side rather than the usual fore-aft motion. A more-or-less 1970's style pistol-grip shift handle is an option, but, from the literature, appears to be restricted to the SRT-8.
Handling, from the (also) Mercedes-derived chassis/suspension is positive, with smooth steering feedback, and response is fairly but not overly-quick. There is little body roll (the SRT can be expected to have even less), and the cornering stance, as expected, is basically flat. Unlike the live-axle Mustang GT (higher-level Cobra-Mustangs get an IRS), the Challenger's chassis, being Mercedes-derived, has an independent rear suspension/axle, which, of course, that gives it a little more sophistication in the ride/handling department than lower-level Mustangs. But Ford used a live rear axle on the Mustang GT for a reason.....besides the obvious lower cost of production and simpler service/repair, a live axle is more durable and resistant to self-destruction from abuse and tire-smoking burnouts than independent rear ends. And you KNOW that the average Challenger R/T owner is going to do a burnout now and then, just like Mustangs. Dodge, to some extent, recitifies this with a lifetime power-train warranty for the R/T. (Sorry, folks, the SRT-8 doesn't get that lifetime warranty).
Braking feel through the pedal, with its 4-piston calipers, is right-now superlative...about as close to zero sponginess as I've experienced on a street car. Only some BMWs can compare with it. The SRT comes with Brembos, which are not available on the R/T, but IMO, these brakes are so pleasant to use that, even if they don't stop quite as short as the Brembos, that you probably, in most cases, won't notice the difference.
Road and tire noise, despite the rather thin body sheet metal, is generally well-snubbed, as is wind noise. As mentioned earlier, the drivetrain itself is fairly quiet, except for the (IMO) louder-than-necessary exhaust.
THE VERDICT:
Like Ford with its current-generation Mustang, Dodge has succeeded in basically re-creating the looks, in a slightly modernized form, of its original muscle-car-era ancestor....yes, even down to the poorly-finished interior and trunk of the original one as well. And, like the current Mustang, I think it's safe to say that this car certainly has dynamite looks, at least on the outside. However, Dodge, like Ford, skimped badly on the Challenger's sheet metal and interior trim/hardware quality.....both cars are classic cases of bean-counter cost cutting, though the Challenger's carbon-fiber trim is not bad.
So the question arises.....is this car worth what it costs? My admittedly loaded version ran over 37K, but had virtually every option. Dealers seem to be taking advantage of the low production numbers and hard-to-get availability to order loaded models for maximum profit. You could maybe special-order a cheaper, stripped version...but be prepared to wait for it. Next year, lower-cost V6 versions will also be available.....Dodge has not yet put them into production.
So, what do you get for your money? Well, as I stated above, a pretty nice, Mercedes-engineered chassis, transmission, and brakes....all very well- done, especially the brakes. A powerful, smooth V8 with a seamless cylinder-deactivation feature and the ability, in a pinch, to use 87 Octane. Looks that will make you (along with the Mustang GT) Co-Kings of the Friday Night car-club scene.
But, inside, you have to put up with insultingly cheap plastic trim, hardware, and stalks. A loud exhaust constantly assaults your ears. A high-powered, RWD layout like this, with low-profile tires, is best left off of slick roads in the winter....make sure you have a Subaru on the side. Gas mileage, while not the worst available, will not win any economy runs, even with the de-activated cylinders at cruise. And your friendly insurance agent, especially if you are young and/or your driving record is not spotlessly clean, may find excuses for you to fork over those $$$$$ for your premium.
So only you, as a car shopper, can decide if this car is right for you, or if it is worth the $$$$$ it costs. For me, the answer is a clear no, despite its nostalgic links to my high-school years. However, a case can be made that the R/T may be a better deal than the even more expensive SRT Challenger, which starts at almost $42,000, and doesn't really have that much more power, especially in the all-important torque figure for acceleration....though I can't say that with 100% certainty because I haven't driven an SRT-8.
Last, the big ace-in-the-hole, of course, will be Chevy's new up-and-coming retro Camaro, due out next year in RS and SS versions. It will join the Mustang and Challenger in the back-to-the-Sixties game of retro-pony cars, and, of course, only time will tell how it will stack up against its two competitors. Yes..........I'll be ready to review it when it arrives.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-22-08 at 07:02 PM.
09-22-08, 07:10 PM
#2
Great review, cannot wait till I see this car on the road.
Ironically what I love the most about it is how you consistently made sure the reader knew you were mature and responsible and that shameless Subaru plug near the end
Ironically what I love the most about it is how you consistently made sure the reader knew you were mature and responsible and that shameless Subaru plug near the end
09-22-08, 07:38 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks. 
There are a few of them running around. The first batch of them went to celebrities and special auctions. It is just starting to reach the general public now.
It is dealers that want responsible people to test-drive them, not so much what the readers think. Remember, a lot of pony-cars are not only bought, but just looked at and test-driven, by a rather young crowd that tends to drive aggressively. In my part of the country, young people seem to be killed more often in Mustangs than any other specific car.....mostly from drag-racing.
I made the Subaru reference, not to get in a so-called "plug", but to simply use an analogy that RWD, high-powered cars like the Challenger and Mustang are, in general, not suited for slick roads. In the winter, you will want to have a better-suited vehicle for snow available if you plan to go out in bad weather.....Subrus are excellent cars for that, but, of course, not the ONLY cars suitable for that..........there are many other good AWD designs available as well.
There are a few of them running around. The first batch of them went to celebrities and special auctions. It is just starting to reach the general public now.
Ironically what I love the most about it is how you consistently made sure the reader knew you were mature and responsible and that shameless Subaru plug near the end
I made the Subaru reference, not to get in a so-called "plug", but to simply use an analogy that RWD, high-powered cars like the Challenger and Mustang are, in general, not suited for slick roads. In the winter, you will want to have a better-suited vehicle for snow available if you plan to go out in bad weather.....Subrus are excellent cars for that, but, of course, not the ONLY cars suitable for that..........there are many other good AWD designs available as well.
09-22-08, 07:47 PM
#4
Lexus Test Driver
I've seen a few of them on the road, and for some reason, it just doesn't hit me like the concept did.
For one thing, they take up as much space as an aircraft carrier on the road, and maybe it's the size of the thing, or the color of choice currently being orange for all of them...it just hasn't hit a good note with me as I initially expected.
Unfortunately, I think the Challenger is one of those few cars that do better in pictures than in person.
For one thing, they take up as much space as an aircraft carrier on the road, and maybe it's the size of the thing, or the color of choice currently being orange for all of them...it just hasn't hit a good note with me as I initially expected.
Unfortunately, I think the Challenger is one of those few cars that do better in pictures than in person.
09-22-08, 07:59 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
For one thing, they take up as much space as an aircraft carrier on the road, and maybe it's the size of the thing, or the color of choice currently being orange for all of them...it just hasn't hit a good note with me as I initially expected.
Unfortunately, I think the Challenger is one of those few cars that do better in pictures than in person.
09-22-08, 08:07 PM
#6
Lead Lap
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: falling back and fading...
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Great review. I saw one in person maybe a couple of weeks ago. I actually felt the same way whoster did; it didn't really scream at me like I thought it would based on my original impressions of the concepts, etc.
Certain design elements seemed a bit awkward to me. It was a silver SRT-8 model. I didn't realize they were so hard to come by.
Certain design elements seemed a bit awkward to me. It was a silver SRT-8 model. I didn't realize they were so hard to come by.
09-22-08, 08:13 PM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
Its styling probably WILL seem awkward to those used to the typical bullet/wedge-shaped stuff of today. The more boxy shapes of the '70s era had both advantages and disadvantages.....which I tried to point out in the review.
I saw one in person maybe a couple of weeks ago. I actually felt the same way whoster did; it didn't really scream at me like I thought it would based on my original impressions of the concepts, etc.
Certain design elements seemed a bit awkward to me. It was a silver SRT-8 model. I didn't realize they were so hard to come by.
Certain design elements seemed a bit awkward to me. It was a silver SRT-8 model. I didn't realize they were so hard to come by.
Last edited by mmarshall; 09-22-08 at 09:15 PM.
Trending Topics
09-22-08, 09:01 PM
#8
Lead Lap
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: falling back and fading...
Posts: 720
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
[QUOTE=mmarshall;3858570]
It wasn't so much the shape, which I love by the way, but the seemingly "high riding" look. I do appreciate the look of an aggressively lowered car, I will admit, but do not feel that it's a necessity as many of our fellow members here might.
What I mean is it just seemed to ride "high" kind of like how some of those American cars that are fitted with "much too big" wheels look. Where the wheel size raises the car off the ground so that it looks kind of like a toy car with oversized wheels. Perhaps the 20" wheels are too big?
Also, the dark grille/headlight area seemed a bit high in comparison to the otherwise rather large and tall front bumper area. Perhaps if it were fatter and/or ran a little closer to the ground I'd like it better. It just seemed like too little of a strip of dark set alongside a fairly large and flat painted area (particularly if it's a lighter-colored car). Of course, the obvious modification for many would be to lower it significantly.
And lastly, I didn't really like the way they put the racing stripes on the hood. Seemed to be a bit too thin and too close together for my taste. Wider and a bit more spaced would look better in my opinion. Sad to hear they're overpriced as well.
What I mean is it just seemed to ride "high" kind of like how some of those American cars that are fitted with "much too big" wheels look. Where the wheel size raises the car off the ground so that it looks kind of like a toy car with oversized wheels. Perhaps the 20" wheels are too big?
Also, the dark grille/headlight area seemed a bit high in comparison to the otherwise rather large and tall front bumper area. Perhaps if it were fatter and/or ran a little closer to the ground I'd like it better. It just seemed like too little of a strip of dark set alongside a fairly large and flat painted area (particularly if it's a lighter-colored car). Of course, the obvious modification for many would be to lower it significantly.
And lastly, I didn't really like the way they put the racing stripes on the hood. Seemed to be a bit too thin and too close together for my taste. Wider and a bit more spaced would look better in my opinion. Sad to hear they're overpriced as well.
09-22-08, 09:22 PM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
And lastly, I didn't really like the way they put the racing stripes on the hood. Seemed to be a bit too thin and too close together for my taste. Wider and a bit more spaced would look better in my opinion. Sad to hear they're overpriced as well.
There are several different flat-black stripe patterns available, but as you note (and I did in the review) they are absurdly priced.
Those double hood-stripes on the metalflake-orange concept Challenger that made the rounds at auto shows are NOT tape. That was a special carbon-fiber hood with actual twin black carbon-fiber sections in it, which, obviously, did not see production.
09-22-08, 09:33 PM
#10
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great review!
I know that this platform uses the old E-Class (pre 2003) architecture and suspension components, but you also mentioned the transmission. If my memory serves me correct, the E-Class used a 5-Speed ZF Friedrichshafen unit with shift-tronic. Is this the same transmission in the Challenger?
I know that this platform uses the old E-Class (pre 2003) architecture and suspension components, but you also mentioned the transmission. If my memory serves me correct, the E-Class used a 5-Speed ZF Friedrichshafen unit with shift-tronic. Is this the same transmission in the Challenger?
09-22-08, 10:26 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Los Angeles/Vancouver
Posts: 6,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another superb review
ive seen it on a road a couple of times
and both times made me fell in love with it
i really like the classic muscle car look in a modern form
if it wasnt the ultra-cheap interior, id be test driving one now
i hope GM approaches the Camaro with a better interior
ive seen it on a road a couple of times
and both times made me fell in love with it
i really like the classic muscle car look in a modern form
if it wasnt the ultra-cheap interior, id be test driving one now
i hope GM approaches the Camaro with a better interior
09-22-08, 11:39 PM
#13
[QUOTE=chrisyano;3858752]
It wasn't so much the shape, which I love by the way, but the seemingly "high riding" look. I do appreciate the look of an aggressively lowered car, I will admit, but do not feel that it's a necessity as many of our fellow members here might.
What I mean is it just seemed to ride "high" kind of like how some of those American cars that are fitted with "much too big" wheels look. Where the wheel size raises the car off the ground so that it looks kind of like a toy car with oversized wheels. Perhaps the 20" wheels are too big?
Also, the dark grille/headlight area seemed a bit high in comparison to the otherwise rather large and tall front bumper area. Perhaps if it were fatter and/or ran a little closer to the ground I'd like it better. It just seemed like too little of a strip of dark set alongside a fairly large and flat painted area (particularly if it's a lighter-colored car). Of course, the obvious modification for many would be to lower it significantly.
And lastly, I didn't really like the way they put the racing stripes on the hood. Seemed to be a bit too thin and too close together for my taste. Wider and a bit more spaced would look better in my opinion. Sad to hear they're overpriced as well.
I agree, a silver Challanger drove with me for about 10 miles yesterday on the 405 freeway. It looked like it was taller than the overall width.
I liked the original car, at one time it was my favorite car. and the new car looks good from the side, but following behind it I was sure this silver example was a base model car without a Hemi.
It wasn't so much the shape, which I love by the way, but the seemingly "high riding" look. I do appreciate the look of an aggressively lowered car, I will admit, but do not feel that it's a necessity as many of our fellow members here might.
What I mean is it just seemed to ride "high" kind of like how some of those American cars that are fitted with "much too big" wheels look. Where the wheel size raises the car off the ground so that it looks kind of like a toy car with oversized wheels. Perhaps the 20" wheels are too big?
Also, the dark grille/headlight area seemed a bit high in comparison to the otherwise rather large and tall front bumper area. Perhaps if it were fatter and/or ran a little closer to the ground I'd like it better. It just seemed like too little of a strip of dark set alongside a fairly large and flat painted area (particularly if it's a lighter-colored car). Of course, the obvious modification for many would be to lower it significantly.
And lastly, I didn't really like the way they put the racing stripes on the hood. Seemed to be a bit too thin and too close together for my taste. Wider and a bit more spaced would look better in my opinion. Sad to hear they're overpriced as well.
I liked the original car, at one time it was my favorite car. and the new car looks good from the side, but following behind it I was sure this silver example was a base model car without a Hemi.
09-23-08, 04:15 AM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Great review!
I know that this platform uses the old E-Class (pre 2003) architecture and suspension components, but you also mentioned the transmission. If my memory serves me correct, the E-Class used a 5-Speed ZF Friedrichshafen unit with shift-tronic. Is this the same transmission in the Challenger?
Thanks.