Anyone have a 2008+ Dodge Challenger?

In reply to Sky_Render:

Again, I'm not looking for another Sport Compact this time. I want something big and powerful that is a good GT car. 24-25 mpg would fit the bill for me and I'd be happy with that.

I did this commute with my old 2009 WRX and it was awful. Uncomfortable, twitchy handling, and it always seemed strained at highway speeds, like it needed a 6th gear. If any car needed a 6th gear, it was that one! It had a short range, and I was filling up all the time with premium fuel. That and sitting in traffic with it's heavy clutch was not fun at all.

I'm doing it now with my Mazda 3 and it's a lot better, but I wish it was bigger and more comfortable. 375hp and 4000lbs is fine with me. The Mazda is around 3000 and has 165ish hp and gets blown all over the road. Range is much better than the WRX, but 24-25mpg + a 19 gallon tank would be awesome. I'll take the slight hit in mileage.

The Challenger won't win any races, nor do I expect it to. Like I said before, I have a CSX and a Trans Am for that stuff, and when they are done, I can do all that stuff with them.

I like the Challengers, but what concerns me is that you're getting 25-28 MPG in the Mazda3 on your commute, and are expecting 24-25 MPG out of the Challenger. Increasing the weight by 1,000+ lbs, more than doubling HP/TQ, and adding considerable size in all directions seems like it would come at a larger penalty than 3-4 MPG. What's the EPA highway rating for your Mazda3, and what speeds are you running on the highway? The new '13 R/T 6spd's EPA highway rating is 23 MPG, and fuelly.com puts the V8 Challengers around 20 MPG overall:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/dodge/challenger/gas%20v8

Obviously, there are going to be some people who hammer the car and bring the average MPG down, but it's a good spot-check of if your numbers are realistic. Edit: the fuelly.com number for the '10 Mazda3 is 27 MPG, so your economy is right on the average.

The three data points I can add from personal experience is that my two 1992 5.0 Mustangs (both T5 five speeds, the GT was around 3100 and the notch was stripped and under 3,000 lbs) got around 25 MPG in highway-only driving. They both had the 3.08 rear axle ratio. My Dad has an '02 Mustang GT (5spd manual) that weighs around 3200-3300 lbs and he was getting around 26 MPG in highway driving, and he generally does better than the EPA ratings. All the Mustangs have far less weight than the Challenger, less size, and far less power.

Given that you're putting on 30K a year in commuting, I'd model the fuel cost out a couple different ways (pessimistic, realistic, and optimistic) and see if you're OK with the costs even if you don't get the 24-25 MPG you're hoping for.

In reply to dj06482:

Yeah, I know. The Mazda is rated at 21 city / 28 highway. Right now, I'm getting over 30mpg out of it on this tank, but there's been light traffic this week because most people are on vacation. Usually, I get 26-27mpg. Hammering on it nets me 25-26. I usually cruise at 70mph on the highway. Anything over that and the car gets really thirsty.

Maybe the Challenger is a bad fit for me. I don't know. I know my friend has cracked 30mpg on his Mustang when he's not beating the ever living snot out of it.

Here's a comparison list I just came up with between the Big 3's current Pony Car lineup:

Out of the three…

Mustang: Pros:

-Fastest

-best handling

-probably best gas mileage

-newest ones have standard HIDs and a bunch of other cool stuff

Cons:

-transmission issues with manual

-insurance most likely highest out of the three

-urge to mod it

-Shortest fuel range because it has the smallest tank

Camaro: Pros:

-425 HP!

-cheapest on the used market (so far)

-You can make it look like a Trans Am later

Cons:

-it seems half-baked, like they could have made it better

-not crazy on the styling

-Outward visibility and ergonomics (I have to sit in one to be sure)

-Transformers

Challenger: Pros:

-Clearly the best looking one

-It’s got a Hemi

-roomiest, cushiest, and best everyday driver

-Runs on 87 octane with auto transmission

Cons:

-Maintenance seems intensive (16 spark plugs!!!)

-No spare tire, just a “you’re SOL” tire pump

-heaviest, worst mileage

Feel free to add any points.

I get high 20s in MPG in my Mustang. That is also the EPA rating.

The Challenger is not as fuel efficient.

If you want a fast, comfortable, gorgeous-looking car, buy it! Just don't expect it to be fuel efficient or handle like a Miata.

The 3.73s in the Track Pack have MURDERED gas mileage much more than I thought it would (3.31s in normal 6 spds). Typical 65mph highway driving with the cruise on, the dash tells me 22mpg. Although with some playing around, the car does seem to get better mpg at 75 than it does at 60. But I'm not looking to add to the police coffers with a ticket..

I avg 18mpg mixed driving in the GT and I'm very, very gentle with the car most of the time. And the gallons divided by mileage seem to confirm this. I am curious though if Ford recalibrates the ECU's in the Track Pack cars to account for the 3.73s.........it kinda seems like the mileage increasing too quickly for where I drive, but...

Call your insurance agent and get quotes for the vehicles, I was surprised how cheap my insurance is.

30, married, no tickets/wrecks, homeowner, very good credit.

I paid $60/month full coverage on my '11 Frontier Pro-4X, I pay $71/month for full coverage on the GT.

I have no practical input here other than after reading this entire thread, it makes me want a Challenger that much more. I have race cars...I don't need another one, but I would love a car as nice looking as a Challenger with 3 pedals that was fast enough to be fun, but comfortable enough to be useable. Even if you get low 20's out of it in combined driving, that's still pretty damn good considering what it is.

Pat wrote: I have no practical input here other than after reading this entire thread, it makes me want a Challenger that much more. I have race cars...I don't need another one, but I would love a car as nice looking as a Challenger with 3 pedals that was fast enough to be fun, but comfortable enough to be useable. Even if you get low 20's out of it in combined driving, that's still pretty damn good considering what it is.

Yep, and that is the beauty of the Challenger. If I could afford two nice cars and didn't need to ever drive in snow, I would have one. As it is, I chose the Mustang because it can actually be raced and I could only afford one new car.

Silverfleet -

My friend is in a similar situation to yours, and we've discussed it many times through the years. He actually has some old classic musclecars ('67 Camaro, 70s Trans-Am), and his fair weather daily is a 2001 Mustang GT (5spd). His has over 260K on it and looks (and drives) like new. His commute is around 120 miles per day, so he racks up the mileage quickly, as well. He's gone back and forth between the new Challenger and the new Camaro (the Mustang doesn't interest him that much), and he's gone back and forth a million times between the V6s and the V8s based on the fuel economy argument. He still hasn't decided, so meanwhile he gets about 25 MPG from his Mustang, and he drives it whenever there's not snow/ice/sand on the ground.

I really don't know what I'd do in your shoes, but at 30K per year you spend a lot of time in your car, so you might as well be happy. If you can afford to take the mileage hit to drive something you really enjoy, then I'd say go for it!

I think what I really need to do (for now) is fix one of my broken projects enough to drive it. I think I am just getting bored of the 3 and going through the winter doldrums. It's extra boring and sloppy (and ugly) with the steelies and winter tires on.

I like the 3 for what it is. It is a great daily driver, and that's it. I just wish it was bigger, more powerful, and "cooler" a lot of the time. I can't fault the car; I can only fault the nut behind the wheel.

I think I'm going to play the waiting game for now. I still would love to hear all opinions and facts on these cars though. Plus, if I wait, then the current models which are all nice will be cheaper, and the earlier ones even more-so!

The Mustangs are better.

Sky_Render wrote: The Mustangs are better.

I concur with this good fellow.

SilverFleet wrote: Challenger: Pros: -roomiest, cushiest, and best everyday driver -Runs on 87 octane with auto transmission Cons: -Maintenance seems intensive (16 spark plugs!!!) -No spare tire, just a “you’re SOL” tire pump -heaviest, worst mileage

I have an R/T, it has a compact spare. The srt8's had an air pump and an optional spare tire. It is in the trunk with the battery.

There are 16 plugs, they are copper, and the recommended interval is 30k miles. None appear difficult to get at, no manifold removal or special tools. I don't mind things like this when the plugs are actually accessible.

89 octane is supposedly acceptable with the 6 speed, I just can't justify the savings (insignificant). My local sams club sells 93 octane for the same cost as 91 elsewhere.

I don't think the weight is the biggest enemy for fuel mileage, I think its the shape, and the 3.91 rear axle. I am probably in the minority, but I would love to adapt the cylinder deactivation to my manual trans challenger, with an off switch obviously. It's a pretty simple system, but the ECM is highly complex.

Again my PR is 26 mpg, that is all highway and speeds mostly 60-65mph. Averaging over 70mph brings highway average down to 21-22. Town can be 16-19mpg. To reiterate, I am a conservative driver. I was able to eek out a 29mpg trip from my c4 vette which had the same trans ratio's, but a 3.73 rear axle and a more aerodynamic shape. I have more trouble keeping tread on the tires than gas in the tank.

I have a spreadsheet of every fill/mileage up for the dodge from new, but I have no idea how to post an excel file. If you send me your email address, I would be happy to forward it to you, to get a first hand idea of fuel costs.

The mustangs ARE better, but everyone has one.

I think the only options you should look for on a challenger are the "track-pack" and the HID headlights. The 6 speed trans is slick, and has a dual clutch setup (and hill holder) with a light pedal.

I would avoid the sunroof unless you are short.

The non-track pack rear ratio's are probably pretty good, 3.91 is a bit excessive with the transmission ratios.

I see you are in mass, I have family up north, I will send you a pm the next time I'm up visiting if you are available for a ride or a look over.