The Challenger is still unchallenged IMO. If anybody wants to drive a squat box of a camaro or mustang, then they can have my share. The HELLCAT is the ultimate factory car. While I'd like to see FCA sell a ton of them for profits, I wouldn't want to see every second vehicle on the the road be a Challenger. I like a bit of exclusiveness.

 

The Camaro is only appealing to people who want performance. Hands down, the Camaro is going to keep wiping the floor with the Mustang and especially the Challenger. Some have said the manual transmission SS models will be capable of 11s right off the showroom floor with simply drag radials. It's no contest.

As far as the rest of the purchase goes, you're getting notoriously horrendous GM quality, a seating position that's too low, terrible visibility, etc. The overall driving experience isn't that great, and it's less practical than the Challenger. Finally, the base price is $5,000 more than Challenger R/T or Mustang GT. I don't think it'll be the holy grail, personally.

 

Is the new camero released yet? I was picking up our newly enlisted soldiers in Butte MT last week and there was a black with Michigan plates camero driving down the road.. It looks nice in person but still looks like a chop top... They sure didn't fix the line of sight issue in these that's for sure lol

 

When I think of 4-cylinder pony cars, all that comes to mind is the Mustang II, Omni 024s/Horizon TC3s, Celica SR5s, or worse, a Mercury Cougar that shared parts with Mazdas. Yuck. I hope we never see another 4-cyl. Challenger. If someone wants fuel economy with some sportiness, go buy a Dart GT.

 

I suggest you go test drive one. The Ecoboost Mustang is actually a fun to drive car that is quite quick. It is nothing like the vehicles you have listed.

Mike

 

The Challenger SRT 392 and Scat Pack are still faster than the Camaro SS at the drag strip. The Challenger SRT 392 will also surprise the Camaro SS at the road course.

I'll wait for real world numbers on the weight. Ford and GM have both advertised weights of the Mustang and Camaro lower than they actually are. I have no doubt the Camaro is lighter, I just doubt it is at light as the blanket statement claims.

Different strokes for different folks. If you want a real trunk and the ability to put four people in the car comfortably, the Challenger still wins hands down. There is more to come from the Challenger, stay tuned.

Mike

 

Was just reading the December 2015 issue of Automobile in the doctor's office waiting room yesterday. They seemed to be in love with the 2016 Camaro. They discussed how it was going to compete against the Mustang but never once mentioned the Challenger.......like it didn't exist. Seems they liked what the weight reduction did for performance and handling. Weight is one of Challenger's downsides even though FCA has tried to counter that with powerful engines. Personally, I think the Camaro is too small inside and the styling cartoonish. Not a big fan of the new Mustang either. It will be interesting to see what direction FCA takes the Challenger in. If they stray too far from the original, I hope they have enough sense to put the name back on the shelf for awhile and call whatever follows something else. I owned a Mitsubishi-built Challenger back in the day, but I never, ever deluded myself into thinking it was the real thing.

 

We agree.

Mike

 

The 2015 Mustang is one of the best styling renditions of Mustang I've seen yet; and they've put out quite a number of 'em over the decades.

The Camaro seems quite capable, and the styling is overall fairly good - it looks basically 'Camaro-ish'.

The Challenger is different from the original Challenger, quite like the Camaro and Mustang are different from their original hey-day, but the Challenger seems to have been restyled to be closer to the hey-day Challenger more so than the other two. It's a really good version.

Now, in 2014-16, there are power choices making things interesting again.

 

The 2015 Mustang is one of the best styling renditions of Mustang I've seen yet; and they've put out quite a number of 'em over the decades.

The Camaro seems quite capable, and the styling is overall fairly good - it looks basically 'Camaro-ish'.

The Challenger is different from the original Challenger, quite like the Camaro and Mustang are different from their original hey-day, but the Challenger seems to have been restyled to be closer to the hey-day Challenger more so than the other two. It's a really good version.

Now, in 2014-16, there are power choices making things interesting again.

I liked the 2005-2014 Mustang's styling......like the Challenger, close to the original Mustangs from the late '60s/1970. The Camaro reincarnation is a caricature of the original. I'm not a fan, and my wife, who's first car was a used '69 Camaro, thinks the new one misses the mark, unlike the Mustang and Challenger. But, then again, she'd be happy if they brought the '72-'74 Barracuda back. That's her favorite pony car of all time.....something about those round taillights......GM-like, IMO.

 

I think the magazines leaving the Challenger out of the 3 way comparison is a good thing for the Challenger. It really does seem to be a different animal. I think the Challenger is a plusher, more grown-up muscle car whereas the Ford and Chevy are more of the pure performance sports cars.

With a smoother ride, more space and a nicer interior comes more weight. It's a trade-off I would be willing to make at my age and I'm sure plenty others out there agree. Not to mention, the Challenger is the best looking of the 3.

 

I hope I never see a 4 cyl Challenger. If your goal is economy, then go buy a spark or something. The Challenger is what it's supposed to be.

 

Even a turbo?

 

My last non-Mopar car was a Camaro. Its peeling paint and cheap plastic parts were the final straws that put me into a Dodge. I've never looked back.

 

The four cylinder Camaro generates nearly as much power as the 3-liter. Not enough for the Challenger I suspect but enough for the smaller Camaro.

Variable geometry turbo - a technology pioneered by Chrysler! - does wonders for ending turbo lag.

My one turbo car was very impressive. http://www.allpar.com/model/spiritrt.html
Note how it whomped on many V8s of the time.

 

That was a different time, in which we are again returning and V8's will again be gone. It's a cycle. V8's were mostly lethargic then also.

 

My pentastar could probably outperform some of those Mike. '75-90' Camaros, I mean.

 

Yup and if the Pentastar is meets performance requirements than so will the turbo 4.

Turbo 4's have come along way and there is nothing wrong with them being installed in the Camaro, Mustang, or in future Challenger or Wrangler models.

Mike

 

I expect the new Camaro to have very impressive driving capabilities. But people who want space + style will continue to choose a Challenger. So while the Mustang and Camaro will battle it out there is always a market for those who want a bigger car. The current Challenger is that choice.

I am always wondering though if the next gen Challenger is quite a bit smaller and they deliver another styling hit will it make the current car look bloated and out of style or will the current one always maintain its favorite look? Popular taste sometimes changes over time... Time will tell...

 

Am I the only one that thinks the new Camaro's are ugly ducks? The only even semi good looking Camaro was the 1970 Z/28. I think the whole thing looks overwrought and contrived. It's like this is the best they could do, and still have look Camaro-ish. The Challenger, is far, far better looking. The Challengers only weakness (from a performance and handling POV) is its weight, and from a normal driver's POV, that weight serves to give the car a solidity the other two (M and C) simply cannot match.

Though I have not driven a new 2016 Camaro, or a 2015 Chally, I have driven most of the others (Mustang 302 included), and there simply is no comparison in how the thing feels to a driver. The Chally wins hands down. It just has a feel to it the others can't match.

 

Am I the only one that thinks the new Camaro's are ugly ducks? .

No, you're not alone. They have zero appeal to me. I'd take almost any other generation Camaro/Firebird over what the GM factory is puking out today. Considering how well the Mustang is selling in comparison I think tells the story. GM seems to have the performance, but I think the looks are holding the Camaro back sales-wise.

 

Some of you must be pretty young, because you think the rise of the 4 cyl is a new thing? We've had turbo 4's in the past (some that were pretty good for the day). It will happen again. Hopefully, by the next time this cycle comes to an end, somebody will have figured out how to build and sell an electric car. Lol

 

My age has nothing to do with it.

Modern turbo 4s can run circles around their predecessors, just like modern V6 and V8 engines.

Mike

 

Chrysler made some pretty good turbo fours in the past. I am sure that there will be better in the future. There are two issues I have with a four and one with a V6. Exhaust sound for both of them and fuel mileage on the four when you put a load on it. I don't know how you are going to get around that issue with current technology. You still have to richen up the fuel/air mixture under load to keep the engine from melting. Figure that out and you would be a very rich person.

 

Under normal operating conditions they can be very economical and efficient.

Mike

 

GM is saying 12.0 second quarter mile, in manual trans. form, for the '16 SS. I have yet to see a Challenger R/T get anywhere remotely close to that. And most 392s I see at the track are about a half second slower. You'd have to drop $70K on a Hellcat if you want to beat a $38K Camaro SS at the drag strip. Ford really has nothing to compete either. That's what I meant when I said the Camaro will keep on wiping the floor with the competition.

But yes... we all agree that the Challenger is a far more practical and useful car. And it's still fun on the weekends. I still would NOT buy a '16 SS.

 

If a 392 is not running 11.9-12.20 at your local track, then a new Camaro is not going to run 12.0 at your local track.

As proven with the 2010 Camaro, the reported weight and performance numbers along with cars used in the magazines were faster than real world vehicles that were continually embarrassed by R/T Challengers stock for stock.

Mike

 

If a 392 is not running 11.9-12.20 at your local track, then a new Camaro is not going to run 12.0 at your local track.

As proven with the 2010 Camaro, the reported weight and performance numbers along with cars used in the magazines were faster than real world vehicles that were continually embarrassed by R/T Challengers stock for stock.

Mike

Current 392's and new Camaro will come down to a drivers race.

 

We shall see

Mike

 

Yup. GM is changing.

 

I assume that the Challenger,Camaro and Mustang will always be rear wheel drive?

 

Once upon a time, they toyed with the idea of making the Mustang FWD, and it ended up being the Probe I believe. You never say never I guess, but I would hope not.

 

New Camaro SS auto I've seen 12.4, I've seen scat packs running 11.80 on nitto drag radials, yes, a drivers race (when camaro also gets drag radials).

The 5.7L almost seems pointless at this point in the game, unless you just want the V8 sound, I guess.

 

It is more than just the V8 sound. As many have stated here, they hold the V8 to their hearts and do not want any other engine. The R/T with 5.7 offers a lot for the money.

Camaro really doesn't offer a V8 powered version that competes with the standard R/T because standard Camaro SS costs $6,000 more than a standard R/T.

Challenger R/T Scat Pack and Camaro SS are real competitors. For someone that can only afford a six cylinder Camaro, the option to buy a 5.7 Hemi Challenger is a serious one.

Why buy a V6 powered Camaro when you can have a faster V8 powered Challenger?

Mike

 

I can't beleive this is still the top topic, Its just like the 196os seesaw, one miniute you are on top the next its time to catch up. My 2 cents make it steer like its on railroad tracks and stop like a Viper. 707 is enough horsepower.

 

The Challenger really is a strong value when you consider that you are literally getting more car. More everything. More room, more trunk space, more seating positions with seatbelts, more horsepower per dollar, etc. The price on well optioned GTs and SSs is going to be getting into Scat Pack/392 territory very easily.

 

There is only one way to get the V8 sound. I put a Pypes system on my 3.5 challenger, very nice bark when its started cold, ask my neighbors! Sounds good when you run it up on the road. @ 6500 not so V8 like and when you put the AC on sounds like a cam lope on a V6 at idle. Fools a lot of people but me. Nothing sounds like a big block MOPAR with an un-silenced air cleaner and hemi mufflers down 5th ave, Godzilla.. The New hemi has its own sound too. SRT 4 sounded great cursing, never heard one wound up my 2.0 R/T sounded like a Bee at 7 grand. That's why I like V8s

 

The New hemi has its own sound too. SRT 4 sounded great cursing, never heard one wound up my 2.0 R/T sounded like a Bee at 7 grand. That's why I like V8s

My PT Cruiser GT sounded like an absolute BEAST once I added a CAI, blowoff valve and straight piped it in place of the muffler. It had a mellow idle but as I wound it out, it had a nasty growl and spit between gears --manual trans, of course! No, it was nothing like a V8, but not the fart piped 'chainsaw' sound of most imports either. It was just its own thing but it sounded like performance. I think the combination of large displacement 4 cyl with straight pipe (no amplifying fart cannon) is what kept it 'true'.

 

Challenger / Charger R/T = 6.4
Challenger / Charger SRT = Blown 6.2
The way it should be

 

It already is.

Mike