Focus Fanatics Forum banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Someone posted this entire article from the August issue of Motor Trend. They drove a Mustang GT against a Dodge Charger in San Francisco - awesome article!

Bullitt - The Rematch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
292 Posts
I raced a charger RT and its a pretty quick car
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Ah, I thought you meant oldies! Bleh to all the new(old) cars!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,241 Posts
polizei said:
Ah, I thought you meant oldies! Bleh to all the new(old) cars!
And yet you drive a Mini Cooper S?? [paranoid]

Interesting find... honestly if we were talking the old cars, I'd take the Charger 440 R/T, that was one mean-looking car with the black on black on black scheme. But with the new ones, it's no contest - the 05 Mustang GT is miles ahead of the new Charger in the looks department. I'm sure Ford is holding out on that Highland Green color for a future "Bullitt" model of the new Mustang.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I think they went in the wrong directions with the remake of the charger. I feel it doesn't mirror it's olden days at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
SVT4ME. Sorry, I want a mini, but I don't have one...I think the new style is ugly, along with the mustang too. Bleh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
[mad] The new charger looks like crap in my mind. Also the HP numbers are nothing great. A 5.7L Hemi with only 340hp or the 6.1L with 425hp. They could have just went with the 5.7L in booth & tuned the SRT8 version more. I would give a [thumb] to a 425hp 5.7L but when you have 6.1L with that same number I find it a little [:(]. Also see that they have a 3.5L V6.[confused] Its just the american idea that a big engine makes you faster[xx(]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,241 Posts
chucksu said:
[mad] Its just the american idea that a big engine makes you faster[xx(]
Ummm... it usually does. Notice as you move up that lineup of engines in the Dodge, the car gets faster and faster? Yeah, you COULD have a highly tuned version of one of the smaller displacement engines, but odds are it would end up being like the engine in the SVT Focus - quirky and somewhat temperamental, qualities most buyers don't care for in an engine. On the other hand you can simply have a nice large, smooth, unstressed engine that makes easy and reliable horsepower with no fuss.

BTW 6.1 liters = approximately 372 cubic inches. The original 1960s 426 Hemi made the same 425 horsepower, but as the name implied, it was 426 cubic inches. That's a difference of 54 cubic inches or 4/10 of a liter, so they are getting the same power out of a smaller engine. Now, when you take into account that they changed the way horsepower is rated in the early 1970's (it's now measured as net instead of gross), that new Hemi has even more of an edge over the old one.

Oh and you'll like this... my first car was the paragon of American automotive excess: 1977 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz. 425 cubic inch (that's 7.0 liters) V8 that got about 7 miles to the gallon, pushing around the largest mass-produced front wheel drive vehicle in the history of automobiles. And it made something like 180 horsepower for all those cubic inches. So frankly we have improved the V8 engine immensely in the last 20 or so years if Chrysler has a 6.1 liter V8 that makes 425 horsepower.

And if I could have that car again as a fun weekend car, I would totally do it. Call me a fat lazy dumb American but I love big V8 engines and cruising around listening to the awesome rumble.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
489 Posts
I like the new Charger. But there are some things that I am not overly fond of. No manual? Yikes. I don't want a sports car that doesn't have a manual gearbox. I don't mind the fact that it's a four door either. I think the interior is pretty sharp.

Now we need a new Camaro. Have you seen the artwork for a potential Hemi Cuda?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
SVT4ME said:

BTW 6.1 liters = approximately 372 cubic inches. The original 1960s 426 Hemi made the same 425 horsepower, but as the name implied, it was 426 cubic inches. That's a difference of 54 cubic inches or 4/10 of a liter, so they are getting the same power out of a smaller engine. Now, when you take into account that they changed the way horsepower is rated in the early 1970's (it's now measured as net instead of gross), that new Hemi has even more of an edge over the old one.

Oh and you'll like this... my first car was the paragon of American automotive excess: 1977 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz. 425 cubic inch (that's 7.0 liters) V8 that got about 7 miles to the gallon, pushing around the largest mass-produced front wheel drive vehicle in the history of automobiles. And it made something like 180 horsepower for all those cubic inches. So frankly we have improved the V8 engine immensely in the last 20 or so years if Chrysler has a 6.1 liter V8 that makes 425 horsepower.

And if I could have that car again as a fun weekend car, I would totally do it. Call me a fat lazy dumb American but I love big V8 engines and cruising around listening to the awesome rumble.
Dont get me wrong, I to dont mind a V8, just not the gas bill at the end of the week. Yes when you break it down that it has 425 in a 372ci engine. Its still over all not a [eek] number. It would be sweet if the engine had 610hp from its 6.1L. With it beeing a V8 it would not need to be a rev happy engine like Lambos, Ferraris & the other 6L V12 engines that put out high HP numbers. I will say over all it could be better, but seeing the price the 30 something year old ppl who buy this, will get it for looks, the charger name & not to many for the performance. Sure you will see a few with a S/C on it pushing over 600hp, but not to many. The biggest thing that kills this charger for me is the slap stick auto, give me a real 5spd please.

Yeah I to had a old car for my first. 79 Camaro with a 350ci rated at a whole 170HP. Then my second was a 80 El Camino with a 267ci & 120hp. Booth did move, just not to fast seeing booth where 3500+LBs. Also they booth got right around 15mpg[xx(]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,241 Posts
Well even the Dodge Viper isn't getting a horsepower output to cubic inch ratio as good as what you'd like, but I doubt after a drive in the Viper you'd be disappointed and complain that you thought it needed more power. [:D]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,948 Posts
Crux said:
I like the new Charger. But there are some things that I am not overly fond of. No manual? Yikes. I don't want a sports car that doesn't have a manual gearbox. I don't mind the fact that it's a four door either. I think the interior is pretty sharp.

Now we need a new Camaro. Have you seen the artwork for a potential Hemi Cuda?
Tha hemi cuda looks like its got a ford front end, chevy back end and dodge doors.
It looks alright though!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,241 Posts
That's a very cool job on the Cuda but we know they'd never do it - for starters, Plymouth doesn't even exist any more (and the Barracuda was a Plymouth). Second, there are plenty of details there that would never make it onto a production car - the shaker scoop they use on two of the "concepts," the grille, and the double-wide tires on the rear are a few things that would undoubtedly go.

More than any of that, though, Daimler Chrysler has already stated that they don't see a market for a retro-inspired two door coupe. They see the money being in sedans, SUVs, and crossovers, which is exactly why the "new Charger" is a sedan and not a coupe bearing retro styling touches.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,620 Posts
I"ll agree with others. I don't much care for the new charger. It has a few nice lines ( the molded line into the back door is nice ). But overall it just misses the mark for me where the mustang is about 85% right. Much better job on Ford's part...

I at least applaud the idea for the article. Fun!
 

·
GO Green
Joined
·
11,148 Posts
well im definitly going to go pick up the latest motor trend issue, that looks pretty interesting. I actualy saw a black charger on the road the other day, yes its nothing like the orginal, but i dont think it looks that bad, compared to the original yes, but car wise.....theres worse. People have to be more open minded these days...jeeez.[:)~] Hey but if i was given a charger, id probably drive it. Then trade it in for a mustang lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,241 Posts
I'd say the Mustang came out on top, although they don't really declare a "winner" it sounds like.

BTW for anyone who might not be that familiar with the cars used in the original movie, the idea that McQueen could keep up with and occasionally stay even with the 440 R/T in his Mustang GT 390 was a little far-fetched, chalk that up to keeping the movie interesting I guess. In real life the Charger (while a larger and heavier car) handily beat the Mustang in acceleration. According to the numbers Motor Trend used from it's own archives, the '68 Charger did 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and a 14.9 second quarter mile, while the Mustang GT with the 390 did 0-60 in 7.8 seconds and turned in a 15.2 second quarter mile. So, for example, once they get out onto that open road south of San Francisco the Charger could have easily left the Mustang behind.

Anyway point being, this time around the '05 Mustang actually is faster than the Charger, both the old Charger and the new Charger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
976 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
imFOCUStman said:
so who won?
Home » MotorTrend Poll Results
Poll Results
Total Votes: 7629

Reliving the classic onscreen matchup, which car would you prefer to race through San Francisco?

Dodge Charger: 38%

Ford Mustang: 61%
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top