I'm a Mustang guy but still happy for you. At age 60 I still want a sporty car.
Officially middle-aged crazy
- Thread starter 440Magnum
- Start date
- Status
I still can't believe you did not go for a 1995 Corolla.
Nice cars you've got there!
Nice cars you've got there!
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Yeah, tire costs are something I worry about with this sucker. And I haven't even REALLY got n it yet ;-)
I'm actually reducing the number of cars I own this year- ones not in the .sig are going away, 99 Jeep is transferring to daughter, etc., 2001 Jeep and 05 PT are going to both be replaced by a newer car for my wife at some point.
And Drew... Mopar? Who, me?
Yeah, its a disease. I've driven the new Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang and they're ALL just awesome vehicles. But I can't see squat out of the Camaro especially to the rear. Between the Mustang and Challenger, it more or less boiled down to me wanting a little bigger, little more of a long-trip car, and that hereditary Mopar gene I got from Dad.
Picture- mine's on the left, a Co-worker's R/T on the right.
That's one thing I hate about taking the train to work, I refuse to take my fun car to the train station -- too many knuckleheads there to ding it up. You have amazing restraint to not have driven that thing around all day.
Yeah, tire costs are something I worry about with this sucker. And I haven't even REALLY got n it yet ;-)
I'm actually reducing the number of cars I own this year- ones not in the .sig are going away, 99 Jeep is transferring to daughter, etc., 2001 Jeep and 05 PT are going to both be replaced by a newer car for my wife at some point.
And Drew... Mopar? Who, me?
Yeah, its a disease. I've driven the new Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang and they're ALL just awesome vehicles. But I can't see squat out of the Camaro especially to the rear. Between the Mustang and Challenger, it more or less boiled down to me wanting a little bigger, little more of a long-trip car, and that hereditary Mopar gene I got from Dad.Picture- mine's on the left, a Co-worker's R/T on the right.
That's one thing I hate about taking the train to work, I refuse to take my fun car to the train station -- too many knuckleheads there to ding it up. You have amazing restraint to not have driven that thing around all day.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
BEAUTIFUL car!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Similar situation here. My wife simply will not allow any "fixed up old cars" anymore as she is worried about the lack of proper safety gear.
So I can have whatever I want as long as it has air bags and seat belts... I'm going to miss my old pickup and my Healy replica...
Getting old sucks.
We still cruise the old iron and just accept the risk... but not for daily use anymore.
And as my back creaks into its 50th year, it really likes the SRT seats a whole lot better than the '66 front bench...
Similar situation here. My wife simply will not allow any "fixed up old cars" anymore as she is worried about the lack of proper safety gear.
So I can have whatever I want as long as it has air bags and seat belts... I'm going to miss my old pickup and my Healy replica...
Getting old sucks.
We still cruise the old iron and just accept the risk... but not for daily use anymore.
And as my back creaks into its 50th year, it really likes the SRT seats a whole lot better than the '66 front bench...
Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Yeah, tire costs are something I worry about with this sucker. And I haven't even REALLY got n it yet ;-)
I'm actually reducing the number of cars I own this year- ones not in the .sig are going away, 99 Jeep is transferring to daughter, etc., 2001 Jeep and 05 PT are going to both be replaced by a newer car for my wife at some point.
And Drew... Mopar? Who, me? Yeah, its a disease. I've driven the new Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang and they're ALL just awesome vehicles. But I can't see squat out of the Camaro especially to the rear. Between the Mustang and Challenger, it more or less boiled down to me wanting a little bigger, little more of a long-trip car, and that hereditary Mopar gene I got from Dad.
Picture- mine's on the left, a Co-worker's R/T on the right.
That's one thing I hate about taking the train to work, I refuse to take my fun car to the train station -- too many knuckleheads there to ding it up. You have amazing restraint to not have driven that thing around all day.
I did slip out a few minutes early... then turned a 14 mile drive into a 50 mile drive ;-)
Thanks for the compliments on the car, its more than I'd hoped for when I started looking for one.
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Yeah, tire costs are something I worry about with this sucker. And I haven't even REALLY got n it yet ;-)
I'm actually reducing the number of cars I own this year- ones not in the .sig are going away, 99 Jeep is transferring to daughter, etc., 2001 Jeep and 05 PT are going to both be replaced by a newer car for my wife at some point.
And Drew... Mopar? Who, me?
Yeah, its a disease. I've driven the new Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang and they're ALL just awesome vehicles. But I can't see squat out of the Camaro especially to the rear. Between the Mustang and Challenger, it more or less boiled down to me wanting a little bigger, little more of a long-trip car, and that hereditary Mopar gene I got from Dad.Picture- mine's on the left, a Co-worker's R/T on the right.
That's one thing I hate about taking the train to work, I refuse to take my fun car to the train station -- too many knuckleheads there to ding it up. You have amazing restraint to not have driven that thing around all day.
I did slip out a few minutes early... then turned a 14 mile drive into a 50 mile drive ;-)
Thanks for the compliments on the car, its more than I'd hoped for when I started looking for one.
Can that thing get up to 100 MPH ?
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Any idea what it can do in the 1/4 mile ?
With a good driver it can easily trap 112-114 mph, but the six speed ET's are all over the place. Probably a 12.5 is about as good as it gets, it's a very heavy car but extremely fast from a roll on...
Any idea what it can do in the 1/4 mile ?
With a good driver it can easily trap 112-114 mph, but the six speed ET's are all over the place. Probably a 12.5 is about as good as it gets, it's a very heavy car but extremely fast from a roll on...
Very nice car! Love the color combo.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Any idea what it can do in the 1/4 mile ?
With a good driver it can easily trap 112-114 mph, but the six speed ET's are all over the place. Probably a 12.5 is about as good as it gets, it's a very heavy car but extremely fast from a roll on...
And with me driving... much slower I'm sure. I find I'm more careful when its not a rental car ;-)
I debated hard about 6-speed versus automagic. The truth is an average joe like me can DRIVE the car a lot harder and faster with the automatic. But I like rowing the gears, and holy heck but does that Tremec shift wonderfully! And the clutch pressure is very mild for coupling so much power, too. We've come a long darn way from the days of the Mopar A-833, Ford Toploader, and Muncie Rock Crusher...
I've seen published reports of the automatic 392s running the mid 12s consistently like SteveSRT8 said (by the way- my name is Steve too... ironic, huh?) but the manual cars are so driver-dependent that the times are scattered. I'd suck at it without a lot of practice, I know. I'm a good, smooth stick driver up to where I'm just beginning to moderately push the car, but really nailing lightning-fast shifts competitively, let alone smooth enough to avoid making the computer fight back by pulling timing a little bit, takes real practice.
The Challenger gives up a lot to, for example the Mustang, in weight. But the ride is really refined, and I'm OK with that end of the compromise- I've had my share of cars that shake your kidney stones loose. Guess I'm getting old... Plus my wife's reaction to the comfort of the front seats was priceless- "Holy cow! Can we just put some of these in front of the fireplace??" ;-)
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Any idea what it can do in the 1/4 mile ?
With a good driver it can easily trap 112-114 mph, but the six speed ET's are all over the place. Probably a 12.5 is about as good as it gets, it's a very heavy car but extremely fast from a roll on...
And with me driving... much slower I'm sure. I find I'm more careful when its not a rental car ;-)
I debated hard about 6-speed versus automagic. The truth is an average joe like me can DRIVE the car a lot harder and faster with the automatic. But I like rowing the gears, and holy heck but does that Tremec shift wonderfully! And the clutch pressure is very mild for coupling so much power, too. We've come a long darn way from the days of the Mopar A-833, Ford Toploader, and Muncie Rock Crusher...
I've seen published reports of the automatic 392s running the mid 12s consistently like SteveSRT8 said (by the way- my name is Steve too... ironic, huh?) but the manual cars are so driver-dependent that the times are scattered. I'd suck at it without a lot of practice, I know. I'm a good, smooth stick driver up to where I'm just beginning to moderately push the car, but really nailing lightning-fast shifts competitively, let alone smooth enough to avoid making the computer fight back by pulling timing a little bit, takes real practice.
The Challenger gives up a lot to, for example the Mustang, in weight. But the ride is really refined, and I'm OK with that end of the compromise- I've had my share of cars that shake your kidney stones loose. Guess I'm getting old... Plus my wife's reaction to the comfort of the front seats was priceless- "Holy cow! Can we just put some of these in front of the fireplace??" ;-)
Last edited:
Wonderful choice. Many folks I know have been very pleased with the LX/LC cars. Mine has been a rock despite tons of track time both strip and HPDE's.
They have a LOT of real content that is simply not in a Mustang. And they will coddle you in comfort. The SRT8 Challenger actually has the softest spring calibrations of the lineup.
Just remember that torque monster has a hellacious top end charge!
Have fun!
They have a LOT of real content that is simply not in a Mustang. And they will coddle you in comfort. The SRT8 Challenger actually has the softest spring calibrations of the lineup.
Just remember that torque monster has a hellacious top end charge!
Have fun!
I know that I already said it's a great car...let me say that again...what a great car! I admired it at a big auto show a couple of years back, but there is a huge difference between sitting in one under fluorescent lights...and rowing through the gears...
Cheers, Astro
Cheers, Astro
I'm right there with you on your view of the auto vs manual. Manuals can be fun but there's something for the ease of an automatic with a big engine and just mashing the throttle and focusing on the acceleration without your trance being interrupted by clutching and shifting
.
I guess though the auto costs extra and you get the cylinder deactivation fuel saver. So that is two strikes against it imo. Plus it's just a 5 speed auto. If the engines were exactly the same, I'd be more tempted to go with the auto. But I'd be pretty happy with just an R/T 5.7 with an automatic
.
I guess though the auto costs extra and you get the cylinder deactivation fuel saver. So that is two strikes against it imo. Plus it's just a 5 speed auto. If the engines were exactly the same, I'd be more tempted to go with the auto. But I'd be pretty happy with just an R/T 5.7 with an automatic
Really, really awesome car! I like the new Mustang too, it would be a hard choice for me.
Congratulations on getting the beautiful car, my dream car too. Just got myself my version of a once in a lifetime vehicle, a slightly used '96 Cobra & I'm enjoying that feeling of not wanting to get out of the ride too. Have fun, congrats!
Great looking ride!
Ditch that front plate and bracket ASAP!
Ditch that front plate and bracket ASAP!
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
I'm right there with you on your view of the auto vs manual. Manuals can be fun but there's something for the ease of an automatic with a big engine and just mashing the throttle and focusing on the acceleration without your trance being interrupted by clutching and shifting
.
I guess though the auto costs extra and you get the cylinder deactivation fuel saver. So that is two strikes against it imo. Plus it's just a 5 speed auto. If the engines were exactly the same, I'd be more tempted to go with the auto. But I'd be pretty happy with just an R/T 5.7 with an automatic
.
There's a lot of clamor for the ZF 8-speed auto to show up behind the 5.7 and 392 engines instead of just behind the Pentastar v6, but I think people need to step back and think about why the 8-speed is around, and whether or not it would benefit the v8s. The torque band on the v8s, especially the 392, is as wide and flat as Texas north of the Caprock. They really don't NEED an 8-speed to keep them in a narrow range to move a heavy car like the Pentastar does. And the 5-speed NAG-1 is just a rock-solid, bulletproof auto trans. You can't go wrong with it, and if I were seriously going to track the car I'd have gone that way. It would kinda be interesting to see if 1/4 mile ETs or city MPG either one improved with the ZF 8-speed behind the 5.7, but I bet Chrysler engineers have already done that (or at least run the simulations) and that's why the NAG-1 is still around. My bet is that the ZF just didn't bring any benefit. I could be wrong, and I'd really like to know for sure.
As for cost- I think the auto is "standard equipment" and the manual is either a no-cost option or maybe costs MORE. I didn't buy new, so I don't have the window sticker, unfortunately. Which reminds me, I need to get the build sheet from Chrysler, they'll send it by E-mail which is how I got the one for my truck.
I'm right there with you on your view of the auto vs manual. Manuals can be fun but there's something for the ease of an automatic with a big engine and just mashing the throttle and focusing on the acceleration without your trance being interrupted by clutching and shifting
I guess though the auto costs extra and you get the cylinder deactivation fuel saver. So that is two strikes against it imo. Plus it's just a 5 speed auto. If the engines were exactly the same, I'd be more tempted to go with the auto. But I'd be pretty happy with just an R/T 5.7 with an automatic
There's a lot of clamor for the ZF 8-speed auto to show up behind the 5.7 and 392 engines instead of just behind the Pentastar v6, but I think people need to step back and think about why the 8-speed is around, and whether or not it would benefit the v8s. The torque band on the v8s, especially the 392, is as wide and flat as Texas north of the Caprock. They really don't NEED an 8-speed to keep them in a narrow range to move a heavy car like the Pentastar does. And the 5-speed NAG-1 is just a rock-solid, bulletproof auto trans. You can't go wrong with it, and if I were seriously going to track the car I'd have gone that way. It would kinda be interesting to see if 1/4 mile ETs or city MPG either one improved with the ZF 8-speed behind the 5.7, but I bet Chrysler engineers have already done that (or at least run the simulations) and that's why the NAG-1 is still around. My bet is that the ZF just didn't bring any benefit. I could be wrong, and I'd really like to know for sure.
As for cost- I think the auto is "standard equipment" and the manual is either a no-cost option or maybe costs MORE. I didn't buy new, so I don't have the window sticker, unfortunately. Which reminds me, I need to get the build sheet from Chrysler, they'll send it by E-mail which is how I got the one for my truck.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
