'09 Challenger compared to '71 Mustang

The '09 Dodge Challenger is out in the mags (C&D, R&T, etc.) in
"Preview" type stories. This thing is huge -- wider than the Dodge
Charger, whose platform is its jumping off point. I got to wondering
how it compares to that old battleship of a ponycar, the '71-'73
Mustang. Here's what I found:

'09 Challenger vs. '71-'73 Mustang:

Length: 197.8 vs. 189.5
Height: 57.0 vs. 50.1
Width: 75.7 vs. 74.1
Wheelbase: 116.0 vs. 109.0
Weight: 4150 vs. 3300

Regarding performance, it's generally agreed that the '71 Boss 351 was
the quickest of this third generation, and possibly the quickest stock
Mustang of the classic era. Although stock performance is a recurring
bone of contention around here, it's safe to say that a Boss 351 (352
ci, 330 hp @ 5400, 370 lb-ft @ 4000) could run 0-60 in about 5.8 and
that a good one will do 13.8 in the quarter. Top speed was 135-145
mph. Regarding the '09 Charger (370 ci, 425 hp @ 6200, 420 lb-ft @
4800), C&D estimates that it will do 0-60 in 4.7, 13.1 in the quarter,
and top out at 173.

Oh, and Dodge estimates mpg of 13/18. That 18 mpg highway of course
depends on an O.D. tranny, something that the classic Mustang never
got. With a 1:1 top gear I'm guessing the Challenger would be on a par
with, or less efficient than, a Boss 351.

180 Out

On Mar 10, 8:22*pm, wrote:
> The '09 Dodge Challenger is out in the mags (C&D, R&T, etc.) in
> "Preview" type stories. This thing is huge -- wider than the Dodge
> Charger, whose platform is its jumping off point. *I got to wondering
> how it compares to that old battleship of a ponycar, the '71-'73
> Mustang. *Here's what I found:
>
> '09 Challenger vs. '71-'73 Mustang:
>
> Length: 197.8 vs. 189.5
> Height: 57.0 vs. 50.1
> Width: 75.7 vs. 74.1
> Wheelbase: 116.0 vs. 109.0
> Weight: 4150 vs. 3300
>
> Regarding performance, it's generally agreed that the '71 Boss 351 was
> the quickest of this third generation, and possibly the quickest stock
> Mustang of the classic era. *Although stock performance is a recurring
> bone of contention around here, it's safe to say that a Boss 351 (352
> ci, 330 hp @ 5400, 370 lb-ft @ 4000) could run 0-60 in about 5.8 and
> that a good one will do 13.8 in the quarter. Top speed was 135-145
> mph. Regarding the '09 Charger (370 ci, 425 hp @ 6200, 420 lb-ft @
> 4800), C&D estimates that it will do 0-60 in 4.7, 13.1 in the quarter,
> and top out at 173.
>
> Oh, and Dodge estimates mpg of 13/18. That 18 mpg highway of course
> depends on an O.D. tranny, something that the classic Mustang never
> got. With a 1:1 top gear I'm guessing the Challenger would be on a par
> with, or less efficient than, a Boss 351.

The main difference to me is that the new Dodge is not available
with a manual transmission.

rd

On Mar 10, 7:22 pm, wrote:
> The '09 Dodge Challenger is out in the mags (C&D, R&T, etc.) in
> "Preview" type stories. This thing is huge -- wider than the Dodge
> Charger, whose platform is its jumping off point. I got to wondering
> how it compares to that old battleship of a ponycar, the '71-'73
> Mustang. Here's what I found:

Yes, the new Challenger is huge. Blame the platform -- the LX sedan's
-- for the size/heft.

> '09 Challenger vs. '71-'73 Mustang:

> Length: 197.8 vs. 189.5
> Height: 57.0 vs. 50.1
> Width: 75.7 vs. 74.1
> Wheelbase: 116.0 vs. 109.0
> Weight: 4150 vs. 3300

> Regarding performance, it's generally agreed that the '71 Boss 351 was
> the quickest of this third generation, and possibly the quickest stock
> Mustang of the classic era. Although stock performance is a recurring
> bone of contention around here, it's safe to say that a Boss 351 (352
> ci, 330 hp @ 5400, 370 lb-ft @ 4000) could run 0-60 in about 5.8 and
> that a good one will do 13.8 in the quarter. Top speed was 135-145
> mph. Regarding the '09 Charger (370 ci, 425 hp @ 6200, 420 lb-ft @
> 4800), C&D estimates that it will do 0-60 in 4.7, 13.1 in the quarter,
> and top out at 173.

> Oh, and Dodge estimates mpg of 13/18. That 18 mpg highway of course
> depends on an O.D. tranny, something that the classic Mustang never
> got. With a 1:1 top gear I'm guessing the Challenger would be on a par
> with, or less efficient than, a Boss 351.

The new Hemi is a thirsty beast. The Hemi Magnum I drove up to
Michigan an X-mas ago sucked down the fuel despite me continually
nailing the throttle and every stoplight and opening on the
freeway. :-)

I must admit the Dodge bulls-eyed the new Challenger. There isn't a
detail they missed to make it a better version of the original. It's
spot on! My only bitch is -- guess what? -- the tonnage. But from
what they had to work with to create it, they did a fine job.

New Challenger = A -

Patrick

2009 will have manual. 2008 is auto only.
" Both the R/T and SRT8 will offer an optional six-speed TREMEC manual
transmission. Production of the 2009 models is set to start early, in
June of 2008"



>
> The main difference to me is that the new Dodge is not available
> with a manual transmission.
>
> rd

Sheer power & speed aside, I'm wondering how "sporty" anything with a
116 inch wheelbase will be........wasn't that the
Impala/Bonneville/LeSabre/88 wheelbase from 1977 on?

One's expectations for "sporty" handling and "feel" are different for
a family sedan vs ponycar.