Why do you continue to disapoint?

lincoln_zero

lincoln_zero

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
923
Reaction score
76
Location
ICE COLD CANADA
I was pondering the other day, my 2002 is starting to show age. I was looking to find a future adequate replacement for the 'ol discontinued 3.9L RWD. So I looked into the Dodge Charger. I really like the new styling. But to my dismay, the new charger is slow as usual.

"The 5.7-liter Hemi V-8 rated at 370 bhp and 395 lb.-ft. of torque, propels the Charger to 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.7"
:Bang 5.7L and all you can accomplish is 13.7?

The V6 3.6L is more disturbing:
"PRICE AS TESTED: $35,310 (base price: $29,420)
292 HP Zero to 60 mph: 6.7 sec Standing ¼-mile: 15.3 sec @ 95 mph"

So, the previous Gen Charger had a 3.5L @ 250HP, and could run a Q/M in 15.4 seconds. Dodge gave the new Gen a 3.6L @ 292 HP (42 HP more) and managed 0.1 seconds?
:confused:

Im openly admitting, with the inferior suspension, slower motor, and less luxury that is the Charger, going from either Gen LS to a 2013 Dodge 3.6L charger, is a serious downgrade. Hell, even the RT Doesn't seem that much more impressive over an aggressively tuned LS.

And my quest continues...

EDIT:
For reference, a stock Second Gen LS is 14.8 seconds in the quarter mile. And has less HP than the 3.6L Charger...
 
Why not look at the Jaguar XF? It's what the LS became. You can get them in the $30-$35K price range slightly used.
 
2009 Charger curb weight - 4085lbs
2013 Charger curb weight - 4364lbs

There's part of the problem. But, that also means that you could probably put the car on a diet and gain some speed, if you wanted to get one.

Pricing just came out on the 2014 Chevy SS, 43 grand with the only option being a sunroof. Comes with a 6.2L. I'm going to look at this, if I like I may buy one in 2015 as I will never again buy the first year model of anything. It'll have to be one helluva car to get me to part with that much money though, and then all my ducks will have to be in a row between now and then.
 
I don't know many large sedans running faster than 13.7 - unless you look at a 5.0 liter Hyundai Genesis. The trick to Charger performance is any tune that gets rid of the torque limiting. Don't do you shopping on paper though - go out and drive one to see how different it is in person. The interior on this year's Charger is leagues ahead of the old.

You want luxury and fast? Look at a used E55 Benz in whatever price range you're shopping. $25k will get you a mint low-mile example and nobody ever says they aren't fast enough!
 
The overwelmingly majority of new cars today have a huge weight problem. Between 432 airbags, and 23 speakers, 67 way power seats, and more computing power than my last three computers weight has skyrocketed. It's not something that you can easily get around.

But if you are really considering a Camaro (yuck) please do yourself a favor and get this.
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2014-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-officially-unveiled-news

I hate Camaro's but that one laps VIR in under 3 minutes. So yeah, its rather quick. And it looks way better than the regular Camaro's IMO. Like it wants to kill orphans or something.
 
Never hurts to have more airbags and weight when you colloid with a Toyota Camry. You will thank all the new safety systems when you are in that situation. And 13.7 is pretty fast for a 4 door car.
 
mark0101 said:
Never hurts to have more airbags and weight when you colloid with a Toyota Camry. You will thank all the new safety systems when you are in that situation. And 13.7 is pretty fast for a 4 door car.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, except for the "never" part. There's a very large number of cars across several brands being recalled because of some problem with one air bag manufacturer that they all used. In this case, the potential exists that instead of cushioning you in a crash, it may shoot shards on metal in your face and set you on fire.

Even though one of my cars is in this recall, I would still rather have airbags than not have them.
 
Neat. If everything RWD GM is going to the new Omega platform, it would be worth the wait then. Excellent.
 
mark0101 said:
Never hurts to have more airbags and weight when you colloid with a Toyota Camry. You will thank all the new safety systems when you are in that situation. And 13.7 is pretty fast for a 4 door car.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really implying it was unecessary or uneeded, just a major factor in newer cars added weight. If were me in a crash, I'd want that passenger cabin foam system from demolition man.
 
If it matters, check out where the battery lives in the Charger....
 
Actually if the V6 would lose some weight (200 - 300lbs) it would be ideal. Weight distribution with the V6 is better than the LS so my snow driving should be as good as the LS. I'm waiting to see if the mild redo in 2015 fixes anything and how much the 2.0T ATS's depreciate before deciding which will be an LS replacement (assuming mine keeps trucking along). Weight distribution on the Chevy SS looks to be lousy so I'm writing that off (plus no manual, which is also a demerit on the Charger/300 chassis).
 
I'm really confused by this thread. Have you even driven either of the Chargers? Saying that a 13 year old gen1 LS is better than either of those is really absurd IMO. Cars are more than just quarter mile and 0-60 times. If you're disappointed in a 13 sec. 4 door sedan, you have extremely high expectations.
 
pragmatic said:
Weight distribution on the Chevy SS looks to be lousy so I'm writing that off (plus no manual, which is also a demerit on the Charger/300 chassis).
Click to expand...

According to Car and Driver it has a near 50/50 weight distribution. However, it also apparently has the old Gen 3 technology and is subject to the gas guzzler tax. If this is the case it's not going to go over well at all. So, GM's going to drop yet another ball. With DOD and variable valve tech the 6.2L could have been stroked to 7.0, and would have been able to maintain V4 mode under almost all non-performance conditions. We'd be talking a 12 second sedan that gets 40MPG. And, I have software that will let me speak to any GM performance setup like I was the engineer setting up the original program. Bummer.
 
I think the Challenger has pretty cool styling and a good amount of space. I haven't driven one though.
 
IMO I would not want a charger because in my area they are pretty popular and you can't go into a parking lot without seeing one there. I like my ls because its very uncommon and if there is ever one around mine is always nicer.:)

If your looking to upgrade I'd have to agree with the folks who recommend the jaguar route.
 
i drove a challenger. lots of power, kinda cramped.. especially in the back. hard to see over the hood too. too tall.
 
Hyundai Genesis 5.0 -- 429hp RWD 8spd auto, 12.9 in the quarter, 25 mpg, all the bells & whistles. The Koreans are doing what the US automakers should have been all along!
 
I appreciate the suggestions and feedback. You guys are great.

As to the Camaro, for the same reason of the mustang and challenger, I would rather 4 doors over 2. Its a personal preference.

Jaguar xf is gorgeous in every way imaginable. I've got to say, what an amazing car. A reason for me not to get it, is because replacement parts will be unaffordable (much like Mercedes and BMW). As well I'm looking to spend around $16 thousand used.

On another note, I did take a 2012 chrysler 300 V8 Hemi for a spin. In would have liked to take the Charger R/T, however it seems every Dodge dealer in the Greater Toronto Area doesn't have one in stock

I would like to say, I STAND CORRECTED. The drive on the Dodge LX platform was fantastic. The ride was amazing, and I was blown away that the luxury was there. The 5.7 Hemi had amazing kick to it.
I feel stupid now since earlier I ridiculed dodged for the build of this car. Although I drove a 300, I'm under the impression the Charger much would perform equally with just tighter steering.
So, IMO, the Dodge charger R/T is most definitely an acceptable replacement for a first Gen LS.

I am now seriously considering a charger RT. However it has to be fly loaded, like the LS.
 
One thing I'd like to add, is that the hemi had good kick, but not much more over my 2002 LS. First gear felt very similar to my LS. Second gear as well. I'd say 3rd had a little more pull.

So, 13.7 quartermile is still not that great - disappointing for a 5.7L. Too much curb weight?
But I imagine with a tune this can be fixed =b
 
According to Motor Trend, a 2012 300 Hemi curb weight is 4387lbs. A Charger comes in at 4365lbs, surprising since the Charger looks smaller. Either car could probably be put lightened somewhat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 174 (members: 0, guests: 174)
Back
Top