2006 Dodge Charger SRT-8

[SilverRT4]

This car is pretty damn sweet, raw american rear wheel horsepower.

Dodge Charger SRT-8

[xceebeex]

Originally Posted by SilverRT4

This car is pretty damn sweet, raw american rear wheel horsepower.

Dodge Charger SRT-8

Hehe, we actually already had a post about this in the lounge. It does look pretty darn sweet. Its gonna be pretty expensive though.

[cps87rx7se]

My dad is planning on ordering one. He does not want the Hemi Durango anymore b/c it is a gas hog. So he is looking a buying one. They are not that expnesive though, loaded they are around 32K.

[xceebeex]

Originally Posted by cps87rx7se

They are not that expnesive though, loaded they are around 32K.

Not the SRT-8, you are talking about the R/T most likely. The SRT-8 will easily be $40k+

[mustangraven]

its not a ugly car but it doesnt have enough of its roots in it. they took a small cue from the 60's with the curve on the rear quarter but not enough to really drum up nastalgia interest. but at least its better than the gtp which looks like a rebadged grand prix.

[DC2Nick]

im not sure how, but i saw one a week or 2 ago on Fuller road at a diner.

definatly was NOT a magnum. it had no wagon.

they look ok.... still dont like the 4 doors and the fact that ALL the dodge cars and trucks have the SAME grill. im surprised the NEON doesn't have it yet.

[Captain Moai]

"Fearsome" is not a word I would use to apply to the 420hp the car churns out. For it's size and weight, 420 horses is beefy but not fearsome.
And wooooo. "more horsepower than the legendary engine that powered the musclecars of the 60's and 70's." Well I should hope that in the last 35 years, we went somewhere with engine design. Bragging about being more powerful than the engines of yesteryear is NOT impressive.

[Khyron]

Originally Posted by Moai

"Fearsome" is not a word I would use to apply to the 420hp the car churns out. For it's size and weight, 420 horses is beefy but not fearsome.

correct, car wieghs more the 4000 lbs

Originally Posted by Moai

And wooooo. "more horsepower than the legendary engine that powered the musclecars of the 60's and 70's."

incorrect. 1965 426 Hemi dyno sheet.
*EDIT* dead pic, go to first link to see
True HP at 433hp
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/dyno-test.html

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/hemispec.html

more info on the 426
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/Hemicntr.html

Well I should hope that in the last 35 years, we went somewhere with engine design. Bragging about being more powerful than the engines of yesteryear is NOT impressive.

truer words have not been spoken...


ohh, and yes, it is ugly :P

[AussieDan]

+1 for ugly, heavy and slow

[DC2Nick]

Originally Posted by Khyron

ohh, and yes, it is ugly :P

that was the best part of his post for me.

[Captain Moai]

Originally Posted by Khyron

incorrect. 1965 426 Hemi dyno sheet.
*EDIT* dead pic, go to first link to see
True HP at 433hp
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/dyno-test.html

My bad - I took it directly from their website but missed the more HP per LITER than the 426. That's even worse I think. Of COURSE it's got more HP per liter than an engine that's older than I am, relied on points ignition and had a freaking carb on it. 426hp out of a 6.1L engine? WOW! THAT"S TECHNOLOGY RIGHT THERE. :roll:

[Khyron]

I would have to check Mopars stats on that. I'm willing to bet the "More HP per liter" is wrong also.

340 six pack was one hell of a motor

Now don't get me wrong. the SRT-8 is a fine motor, I just hate hype

[mikecentola]

ugh, more heavy, useless cars....


and 40K+ for a car thats not the vette....poop on that.