Dodge Challenger Retro

They tried to market the Holden here as the GTO but it bombed. Not much market for butt ugly overpriced junk, even if it does carry a famous name. Hard to believe the GM brass is so stupid and clueless. Do they do any market testing at all before they bring this stuff to market?
 
Quote from nitro:

Yikes! That car has zero sex appeal, but if the rest of the car matches the engine, that is a steal for anyone that wants a rocket!

nitro
More...

a 40 thousand dollar "Grand Am" a steal??

lmao
 
Quote from armoured saint:

a 40 thousand dollar "Grand Am" a steal??

lmao
More...
Sorry,

I thought the LS engine was $29k. I agree, this car is not worth it above $30k.

nitro
 
Quote from nitro:

Sorry,

I thought the LS engine was $29k. I agree, this car is not worth it above $30k.

nitro
More...

here's your BARGAIN:

"The GT, on the other hand, is a 300-hp, five-speed pavement-ripper for about $25,000. The three-valve-per-cylinder V8 engine features both variable camshaft timing and electronic throttle control. The Mustang GT will run 0-60 mph in about 5.5 seconds; it will out-brake a large number of sporty cars; and it handles better on canyon roads that any previous Mustang GT, with a minimum of body roll and a large portion of tire grip. Expect 17/23 mpg with the automatic, 17/25 with the manual."
http://www.automotive.com/2007/43/ford/mustang/reviews/driving-impressions/index.html
 
Quote from armoured saint:

here's your BARGAIN:

"The GT, on the other hand, is a 300-hp, five-speed pavement-ripper for about $25,000. The three-valve-per-cylinder V8 engine features both variable camshaft timing and electronic throttle control. The Mustang GT will run 0-60 mph in about 5.5 seconds; it will out-brake a large number of sporty cars; and it handles better on canyon roads that any previous Mustang GT, with a minimum of body roll and a large portion of tire grip. Expect 17/23 mpg with the automatic, 17/25 with the manual."
http://www.automotive.com/2007/43/ford/mustang/reviews/driving-impressions/index.html
More...
I own a 95 GT convertible as a second car.

I hate the way the rear end sits so high. The car does not engage the way a car like this should for a solid rear axle, which is extremely uncomfortable on typical not smooth Chicago roads.

It is a shame to drive a car like this and have Nissan Maximas easily keep up with you or surpass the mustang on a toll booth race, and they drive quite a bit nicer when not being "raced".

Ford needs to fix the performance and design of the rear end of the Mustang badly. The rear end should sit low and have an IRS, without ruining it's looks. It should take a clue from the GT40:

http://www.me.mtu.edu/~prater/GT40/GT40.html

Put that rear end on a mustang and it would rule.

nitro
 
14 yrs later.. time to upgrade :D

The wheelbase is relatively long, six inches longer than the previous generation (pre-2005), and that makes a difference in terms of ride quality. The ride has smoothed out, and the remaining harshness is of a completely different (and smaller) order.

The rear suspension uses coil springs and a lightweight three-link design with a Panhard bar to keep all motion under constant control. It's about as good as a solid-axle suspension gets, and greatly reduces skipping and bouncing at the back of the car.

The steering is crisp, precise and confidence inspiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top