Mopar Shows off Its 1,000HP 426 Hemi V8 Crate Engine Called the Hellephant

This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:

This article was published by Joe Donaldson (@Joey D) on October 31st, 2018 in the Automotive News category.

 

Hey, that’s not nice! Elephants aren’t THAT big and heavy.

 

I nominate this engine for "Best Name of the Year" award.

 

Hellacan't™

 

I'm waiting for the Hefalump.

And .why in the hell didn't they make the Charger look like this in the first place?!

 

Helliphino

 

Joining the posting club:

Hellemouse engines




On a serious note: I wonder if this engine would pass the emission regulations here in Europe. (this is a fair question isn't it?)

 

It's not even emissions compliant in the US. You can either put it in a non-emissions compliant vechile (like a 68 Charger) or in an off-highway modern car (drag racer, off-road racer, etc).

 

The thing I've liked about Chrysler in the past few years is that they know most of this stuff is a farce. They don't pretend they've made a credible alternative to a 3 series if only you can ignore the blind spots that can hide semi trucks and a trunk that would struggle to accept a pizza box. They don't pretend they've turned the entire industry on its head by making turbocharged 4 cylinders with the performance of a V6 and the fuel consumption of a V8.


They make big dumb cars with big shouty looks and they do the best they can with what they have on hand, and it will be a real shame if the ride ever stops.

 

I disagree, chiefly because they’re actually pretty awful.

Not because they’re big dumb shouty cars (considering that’s what I drive too) but because they’re utter crap.

Underneath the flashy exteriors is a chassis that was never designed with 800 HP in mind back in the 90s.

The main part about these cars that people enjoy, the engines, is also garbage. I’ve yet to speak to a mechanic who says that they’re anything but cheaply made time bombs.

Considering how many problems people have had even with completely stock setups on these, I can see why. Not even their supercharger rotors can stay in one piece without disintegrating into the engine and grenading the whole thing.

If I spent $80,000-$120,000 for a car to do that while stock, you can bet I’d be mad.

Chrysler saying “you know what, we make crap cars, but we own up to it so it’s cool!” is not an excuse. Everybody else has moved on to proper sports cars, Chrysler is still making muscle cars.

It was cool in the 60s and 70s. In fact, those cars are still cool now. But to throw caution to the wind and make crap cars is not cool to me.



Here are some cars that do everything you’re praising them for in a much better way.

-Corvette Z06/ZR1
-F150 Raptor
-Camaro ZL1/Z28/whatever the special new model of the week is.
-Shelby GT350/GT350R, and assumedly the new GT500 once it finally gets here.

You could even include some of the used cars from yesteryear, like the 2014 GT500, Vipers, etc.

I won’t use the excuse of “You could just take a stock (insert car here) and mod it to be faster than any of these cars” because, even though I feel like it is a relevant argument (as well as what I did to reach 820HP)

I understand that it is not an Apples to Apples comparison. Some people would rather have a car come that way straight from the factory, which is completely understandable (at least, when these cars are actually more reliable and don’t eat their own superchargers). If they have the money for that, then that’s fine.

Personally, the sooner this facade of Chrysler’s ends, the sooner they can build something worth the sticker prices they’re charging.

 

Except they aren't. Anything else?


I mean, it's entertaining and all that you're comparing a full size sedan and coupe to a 2 seat sports car, an off road pickup truck and a rolling pillbox (even before you leave the door open for comparing it to older cars that were discontinued due to lack of popularity), but it doesn't get any more substantive as an argument because you know mechanics.





If you really want I can go line by line with your post since there's certainly a couple of jewels to be found therein, but I think I made my point well enough.

 

Id love to see you try.

Their cars are garbage. Overpriced. Driven by tools. I’m more than happy to provide ample evidence of this. Can you provide ample evidence suggesting otherwise, though?

The comparison to every car I mentioned is completely relevant as they are all acceptable alternatives.

People buying a Hellcat Challenger or Charger consider all of these to be viable other options. They aren’t buying this for its practicality. The buy it specifically for its flash.

My friends in the car scene have gone through this very thing. One purchased a scat pack, wanted something faster, so he built a 2SS Camaro, wanted something flashier, got a Hellcat, the engine grenaded stock, now he drives the Raptor competitor made by Chevy, whatever it’s called.

Another was going to purchase a hellcat, found a 2014 GT500 instead and went with that since it’s a much more competent car overall, even with a SRA. Also, citation on the car being discontinued due to lack of popularity. The Mustang is redesigned every 10 years, UNLIKE the Challenger and Charger.

I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them. If you have, then your argument is even more perplexing. I can go with you allllll day on this one.

 

Okay. We'll sidestep the fact that I was clearly talking about the entire model range of the three cars (unless the GT500 is going to have a 4 cylinder, or the horrible visibility is something that only afflicts the ZL1) and you immediately jumped to "Why the Hellcat sucks" for now.

So the 2014 GT500, sitting on it's cheapened-but-still-largely-Lincoln LS floorpan except with a crappier suspension setup, must be just as bad with it's 630 lb-ft, right? Your Mustang, with it's supposed Challenger Demon power numbers, must be borderline undriveable, flexing and skitting around like a Terminator Cobra convertible.




Except the Mercedes at least immediately had an engine with over 450 lb-ft installed (compared to the Lincoln which was always pretty gutless), and the little fact that the LX chassis is not just a repurposed W210, and that the high horsepower Challengers and Chargers are not a modern day equivalent to a Spirit R/T.

I've yet to speak to a mechanic who says they have an inherent problem in their design.


I guess my argument is just as valid as yours then.

Sure is great that your friend (who is definitely not a tool like so many other Hellcat owners) finally found a car that he can beat the hell out of and not have it fail.



Because that might as well be the context for the single example you're applying to thousands of cars sold over the past couple years.

This is such a meaningless clarification that I'm impressed you made it with a straight face. The current Challenger and Charger are no less a modern car than either of the other two. They handle fine, ride fine, the brakes are good, they are safe, and they don't just slap the biggest engine they could in them with no regard to upgrading anything else. They're both bigger and heavier then them, but that does not make them this:






How different do you think the Challenger actually is for the overwhelming majority of the model ranges?

Cool. I mean, you clearly didn't even read my post before you started on about "Why the Hellcat sucks", but let's go anyway:

Seats more than two people in a much better way. Presumably.

Manages to drive like a car instead of a full size crew cab pickup truck on deliberately soft suspension and chunky tires in a much better way. Presumably.

Seats more than two people, has any ability to carry luggage and can actually be driveable in an environment when there are other cars on the road; all in a much better way. Presumably.

A pretty good alternative to a high spec Challenger, mainly coming down to whatever your personal preferences are for the compromises of the base car.

A car that hasn't come out yet (so, like... what the hell justification to you have to make that claim?), but is purported to be just as much of a lardass as the Challenger has always been.

No you can't. I could go buy a C6 ZR1 and it would waste your Mustang that I'm supposed to be super impressed about just as much as it would a Hellcat, but since they don't make that anymore it's not really relevant to a conversation about new cars in 2018.

It's not. If I put a Northstar from a junked Allante in an '88 Fiero circa 1992 it wasn't suddenly a legitimate 348 competitor.

Presumably not your friend, though.



But anyway:

Well the immediate response to this laughably overblown and personal tirade against people for buying a car you don't like is that it certainly seems that I can do the very same for Mustang owners and the initially-Hellcat buying people that associate with them. But that's not really, you know, an argument (no matter how hard you force it) so let's examine the statement in the context of this next one one:

Those people, but definitely not you and definitely not your friend who in fact bought one, are apparently just dudebro douchebags. They just flock to them. That demographic is what makes a couple completely unrelated cars "acceptable alternatives" to the top tier Dodges. But then, when those people buy those "viable other options" instead, they're... not? Why is that? How are cars, one of which isn't even in the same time zone of being a market rival, objectively better than a Charger/Challenger when the owners don't seem to care and the cars themselves weren't designed for the same goals? How much you resent those people (and I'm hoping not just because you couldn't afford one new) is not an explanation nor "ample evidence", so please provide something.





The Raptor is certainly better off road than a Hellcat. Is that the objective quality they should care about? The Corvette certainly gets better gas mileage than the Hellcat. Is that it?

OH BOY YOU SURE GOT ME!

Oh.

And just who the hell do you think you are? Jay Leno? You don't know anything about my financial situation, you don't know anything about my car preferences, and you don't know anything about what cars I've driven. I will say, though, that buying a used Mustang and ordering everything out of the Ford Racing catalog does not make you the leading authority is on what the best car in of the three brands as sold in 2018. If you'd like that to come across, maybe you can formulate an argument that isn't simply how much you hate the people who buy the highest spec Dodges and how your friend's blew an engine.


I've driven a Scat Pack Challenger. Two, actually. Also drove the regular SRT, but that one was one of the very early ones and they really weren't good at all. Working at a Dodge dealer for a little while had perks even if I did hate the job. I've driven the current Camaro in SS form as well, albeit one from before either of the facelifts the car has gotten since debut; as well as the previous generation (albeit one that I think was only the second year). To counter your amazement, it's not very hard to show up at a car dealer in a Corvette, ask to drive an averaged-price car and then be allowed to do so. And let me tell you, I do not care how much better the Camaro performs on a track. I do not care how much better the Camaro is on a skidpad. I don't care how much marginally more fuel economy the Camaro gets from its worse engine package. I do not care how much more like a European car the top spec ZL1 is than the Hellcat. You know what I care about, and why I would never buy the current car? The fact that you cannot see out of the damn thing; that anything aft of the B-Pillar might as well be invisible.. The fact that it is a big car in its own right, but has absolutely atrocious packaging efficiency in interior space and cargo usability. That despite being an entirely new generation of car, GM both of those things even worse. Those are things that matter to me when I buy a car. Those are things that the Challenger does so much better than the Camaro (despite being a ten year old continuously improved car instead of one recently redesigned from the ground up) that it is pointless to even compare the two. The Challenger also rode a decent bit better. The Challenger also had a better interior with better egonomics (other than the steering wheel being too thick) and was way easier to get into and out of. These are also all things that matter to me at least a little as well and why your rantings about tools buying Hellcats instead of the supposedly much more superior options you provided isn't really relevant to the post I made that you had a coronary over. And while your insinuation that the people buying Hellcats instead of a Raptor or whatever must be assholes is super convincing, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply that to all of the ~195,000 people who have bought Challengers for the past 3 years; in comparison to the so-much-better ZL1 that is part of a model whose sales have so thoroughly collapsed that GM has given it an emergency restyling twice.



And while both cars wouldn't be something I'd plan on throwing carseats in the back of any time soon, if I wanted a car with a rear seat as useless as the Camaro's I would just buy another Corvette. Which I was going to next year anyway, so there you go.








tl;dr:

If you were actually capable of doing so I imagine you would have started by now. So, again, anything else?

 

You can't though. Getting a faster car for the same price as something like a Demon is incredibly hard. I wrote about this with the Hennessey Exorcist, which is $40,000 more and barely beats it down the strip. A factory built car will almost always be better than X car with a bunch of modifications on it.

 

Why is the whole range relevant? We’re talking about the Hellephant engine in this thread to begin with, and you yourself said that what you like about Dodge is their flashy loud appeal. Does the AWD, 4400 lb V6 Challenger stir your soul like that?

Talking about the whole range is irrelevant in this context. A rental-car level Challenger/Camaro/Mustang is a completely different discussion. We’re on the opposite end of the spectrum with this Conversation.

Ouch. You just shot yourself in the foot there. A SRA is not significantly inferior in track driving; in some ways, it’s superior, as it is by nature much more capable of taking heavy loads than IRS.

Where a SRA suffers is on bumpy normal roads. I have no problem admitting this and it definitely makes driving it on rough roads less comfy. But it’s not a deal-breaker in any sense, and takes a lot of money off of the price of the car.

Nope. The fact I use R888Rs probably helps though.

It is well known that these cars are able to reach well over 600 WHP on pump gas. The new 18 coyote motors are able to make over 800 WHP on stock internals and E85. The evidence for this is not hard to find, if you truly are doubtful.

Still, I appreciate the “supposed”.

Here is me at one of the 4 road course track days I have taken the car to. If it was undrivable, don’t you think I would’ve switched to taking the STI instead?

This is actually a pretty horrible example as the Terminator Cobra is actually equipped with IRS. True, I’m sure that chopping the roof off makes it lose a good deal of ridgidity, but I would say that the GT500 convertible would’ve been a better example.


Moving on.

So, by that logic, 70’s Muscle cars must have GREAT chassis, since they were given so much torque when they came out, right?

The W210 may have had high torque motors to begin with. That does not inherently make it a good chassis for a car with 800 HP and with standards that have moved 20 years forwards.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...nger-mercedes-connection-37181/?t=37181&amp=1

Seems like enough of a connection to me.

But let’s say you’re right. Please explain to me how the Lincoln chassis of the mustang doesn’t also get a pass for now being re-purposed into a muscle car as well. It certainly weighs a lot less when it comes to the end product. Or does that not offset that it wasn’t designed with a big engine in mind?

I would be surprised if you’ve asked any to begin with.

I can’t do much to substantiate my own claims, unless you expect me to go to the ones I know and record them stating my sentiments. One of my main mechanics, Ben, who has worked at Porsche, Suzuki, GM, and, yes, Chrysler, as a mechanic, told me that the engineering in these Hellcat engines is “garbage, just inflated HP numbers on engines which weren’t designed to handle the power being thrown at them now”.

His source of income is his mommy and daddy, he spends half of his money at a casino and half on his cars.

The other local Hellcat owner tried to convince me that a CAI on his Hellcat makes it faster than a Demon. For a man who looked like a successful 60 year old businessman, I was surprised by his ignorance.

He’s only had it for about a month. His last car was an SS Camaro from 2016 which was Procharged, Meth injected, and Cammed, making over 800 at the wheels as well. He sold that because, as we are discussing, he wanted something more flashy (i.e. able to pick up ladies more easily with its badge name)

However, I have this to present to back up my claims on failures and major quality issues with these cars:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-good-idea-to-keep-the-oil-in-the-engine/amp/

https://www.hellcat.org/threads/disappointed-at-3k-miles.127065/

Back in the day I remember you were the champion of making good factual arguments without taking personal shots. It’s sad to see that since my hiatus, you’ve fallen down to the point of these kinds of tactics and logical fallicies.

You just set yourself up here.

Here we go!

That must be why they’re described as “boats”, right?
A porsche 918 handles great. A Z06 Corvette handles well. An STI handles fine. A Fiesta ST and Miata handle well. A base Camaro handles mediocre, and it’s better than the Mustang.

The Challenger and Charger, especially the Demon, if you want to include it here, are lower down on this list than all of these other cars.

Better than the magnetic ride now found on its competitors?

Yes, if you throw a set of $5,000 Brembos on a car, they can stop it alright, even if it weighs as much as a house.

I will not argue here. Modern cars are extremely safe, and I think that’s something to celebrate more than anything.

Not that these have any groundbreaking systems like Subaru Eyesight, or Tesla’s collision prediction system. But they are definitely safe, and I applaud them for that.

The only thing I would note, is about the Demon being “banned” by the NHRA (even though this is more just a PR stunt than anything I imagine, considering how many of these you see at tracks) due to the lack of a roll cage. For how, admittedly, quick in a straight line the Demon is, this seems like a sketchy shortcut to make.

That would explain why they initially were snapping rear axles like nobody’s business, correct? Citation in one of the above links from earlier.

I hate, and I mean HATE, to refer to anything said in Top Gear, for something in an argument. But if you’re saying that they’re better than a car which a well-trained stunt driver could not aim for the target building in a movie, then that’s a pretty frail point.

I did read your post.

You said “They make big dumb cars with big shouty looks and they do the best they can with what they have on hand, and it will be a real shame if the ride ever stops.”

I am offering alternatives to “big dumb cars with big shouty looks” that are made from companies doing “the best they can with what they have on hand.”

Maybe you should re-read your own post?

Correct. But the Corvette will seat people much BETTER than the 1-seat-no-passenger-seat-for-weight Demon as well. You know, the one used for their marketing of that 9.96 quarter mile time.

What if somebody just wants something flashy? And they aren’t looking for a quarter mile killer? The soft suspension will give a nice ride, gliding over bumps. You can take it in any conditions nature can throw at you. It’s size lends it to be even safer, you’re sitting far up above whatever is likely going to hit you. I would love to own one.

Point 1: The ZL1 has back seats. Saying that the Z28 does not is like saying you can get them removed from the Demon as well.
Point 2: The Camaro is a massive selling car. Even rental car companies rent them out like crazy.

I know the visibility is bad. But if it was anywhere NEAR as bad as you say, there wouldn’t be a ditch without a Camaro in it. Every single one would have awful marks on their bumpers. You wouldn’t be able to insure them, it would cost too much.

Perhaps, like with any car, it’s a period of getting used to it, and you just were unable to do so in whatever time, I presume, you spent, you know, actually driving one?

Well I’m glad we can at least agree on that.

My main point is that, at least when new, the MSRP on the GT350 versus a Hellcat would be, I believe, be in favor of the Mustang by $15k? (Google searching shows $49.9k for a 16 GT350, $64.9k for a 16 Hellcat)

I do agree that I’m sure it will be far heavier than it should be. But I can also guarantee that the magnetic ride suspension will work wonders in aiding this. But we really don’t know, so you’re right. This was a weak point of mine.

Again, two points.

1. I’m not trying to say that you’re supposed to be impressed with it. It’s just simply my car. It’s what I have to base these opinions of mine off of.

2. Moot point since I fail to have video evidence, but I can confirm a stock C6 ZR1, despite the lower weight and better aero, cannot overcome the ~250HP deficit to what I’m currently making, in a straight line.
Corners, the ZR1 all day. A fantastic car, and a shame that the new one wasn’t closer to it in design ethos.

You could debate that, if strapped for cash and looking for something that would give you a similar thrill of a Hellcat for a lot less, buying a used car is a very useful idea.

Another logical fallacy, an inaccurate comparison.

You even made a relevant comparison just a second ago. A second hand C6 ZR1 versus a new Hellcat. I have no doubt that there are many people who, given the financial situation, would consider each of these a viable option.

Primarily, irrelevant to the argument at hand.
Secondarily, incorrect.

In just a little bit, you go into a rant about how I don’t know anything about your life, what you’ve driven, your financial situation, etc.

The same goes from me to you. You have no recollection of any of my experiences. What any of the people I have met are like. What my own financial situation is. So making judgements that I’m up my friend’s bum because he’s an acquaintance is very ignorant and hypocritical of you.

Thats the definition of an argument I present a thesis, state facts, you choose to either agree or disagree, in which case you would present facts too. But if you just want to bow out like this then it’s fine.

I’m one of the Mustang’s biggest critics. But that does not have any bearing on me feeling that it is still superior to the Chrysler products we are discussing at this time.

Moving along.

It’s sad to see you so low like this! What happened to you? I don’t mind being labeled a douchebag myself. I love my car and I love taking it to the track and having fun with it. I didn’t purchase it to show off. It is a tool for providing happiness, and it’s damn good at it.

I hope you have something to give you that happiness in your life.

Me disagreeing with the car they purchase =/= me resenting them.

These cars, including the one in a “different time zone” are all objectively better at particular highlight aspects of the Hellcat. Whether it be flashyness, overall power, practicality, cornering ability, etc. They each offer something that is done better than the Hellcat. I went through it above when going through each car.

If the buyer is just looking for something “cool” and a “panty dropper”, then yes. There’s a much better chance the Raptors all wheel drive and off-roading ability will come in useful than the Hellcat 707 HP will on a normal road, so that would seem like an alternative.

If somebody wants a fast car, as a car they drive often, and takes it on long trips, gas mileage would be very important. So the corvette would be a good alternative. Yes.

I love how when somebody presents you with facts about a false claim of yours, you react with a middle schooler response.

I’m somebody on the internet. Maybe you should take a break from this kind of thing if I can apparently incite so much anger over disussing a vehicle with you.

Again. This all goes both ways.

Please show me where I suggested I’m the authority on thi.

Please show me where I suggest that I hate the owners of these cars.

So far, I’ve presented an argument backed with citations and proof. You’ve gone on a rant about how I apparently am a conceited asshole who thinks his Ford is the greatest car in history. Your argument is non-existent.

Not caring about things that make it better... that’s new.

Thats a perfectly fine opinion.

But again, considering how many are on the road, I’d say a lot of people don’t share your problem with the visibility to the point where it’s a dealbreaker. So, should they still not care about everything else that makes it an objectively better car?

That was not my experience when driving them, but it’s a subjective thing. So I can appreciate that you prefer those things about it. That’s the nice thing about having such a big choice in cars overall!

I see what you’re thinking. You think that because I called them a tool, I am hating against them. I personally don’t think the two go hand in hand, but if that’s how you took that then I would like to say now that I also think that 90% of Mustang owners are tools, especially all of those who put Shelby badges and racing stripes on V6s. That doesn’t equate to an asshole. I hope the above makes sense.

Thats good. I don’t think any of these cars have a truly useable rear seat, something which I think all of them could do much better (minus the corvette obviously).

Nope, I was just busy studying calculus and then I was cleaning my car for our Cars and Coffee this morning. Took a while for me to have the free time to answer. Sorry to keep you waiting.

I agree to an extent. My issue is, unless you are TRULY dedicated to driving this half-race car on the street, some of the turnkey options (COPO and Cobra Jet) would seem like a smarter bet at this point. I’m not sure how they compare in price to be honest though.

If you own a Demon with the nice leather seats, regular tires, etc, then I see the appeal. If you’re ordering one with just a drivers seat, harness, and radials from the factory.. I guess it at least saves the money of having to buy a trailer?

 

Oh man this is the first time I've seen someone call modern Mopar garbage.

I have a '17 Scat Pack Charger and it's far from garbage.

I was going to engage you, but decided it's just not worth it.

 

You don’t need to. All my points and reasoning are above. If you disagree then I’d love to hear your experience.

 

@KinLM I have to be honest I'm not sure if you were having a bad day or what but a lot of your "arguments" are conjecture in that somewhat pissing contest, and somewhat over zealous read ins. @Tornado never said the SRA was a bad thing in a general sense, simply that the set up and derivative wasn't any more keyed in for the level of power it got than that of what you dislike. In reality it took plenty of engineering to get it up to working order. I've talked to Ford and Chrysler reps who worked on these projects and Engineering career fairs, and SAE events.

So from my experience and what I've gained knowledge wise form speaking to them is not as doom and gloom, and in reality it's quite interchangeable

As for pricing between the COPO and CobraJet. You're talking about vehicles that aren't street legal (which you seem to hint at) only designed for drag racing at super stock level and costing 130k USD for either. While the Dodge comes in at less, isn't limited to the track only and with a few check marks here and there when ordering it can run similar numbers. I'm not a fan of current Dodge in anyway but even I can see the cost benefit.

 

Wow I haven't seen threads like this since I stopped posting on SVTperformance like 8 years ago.

Great nostalgia trip!

 

Oh my. There sure is a lot to unpack here.

Because that's what I was talking about from the start.

Since that flashy and loud appeal applies to their entire range. A V6 Charger gets looks for being an aggressive looking car that you can get in wild colors just the same as a Hellcat does.

And if it did what is your problem with that? Like, Jesus Christ. I'd certainly rather have a V6 AWD Challenger than a Ford Explorer.

Oh, you mean in the context of the post I initially made mentioning offhand exactly that that you threw a fit about? Got you.

That would be exactly why I questioned why you went off on the Hellcat, yes; since a comment about the entire range (more towards the lower end for Ford, unless you think the GT500 will have a turbo four cylinder) was what my post was about.

No I didn't, because who gives a flying about track driving?

I'm not doubtful. I just don't actually care. It's not relevant.

That picture did it. Now I am definitely super impressed with your Mustang.

No it's not. You just don't know what an automotive platform even is enough to actually understand that I was making the most extreme example I could to get the point across. I'll get to this in a bit, but first to explain the example:
20 years prior to when the Terminator came out, people knew that that platform it sat on was a bit under spec for the higher power Mustangs (even then, when the car wasn't breaking 200 horspower); and that there were certain models that you bought if you wanted a car that was more stable and behaved with its handling.
Now make that car substantially larger, chop the roof off of it and put a heavier engine with 400 lb-ft of torque in it; all while sitting on fundamentally the same bones underneath.





Put another way, a Terminator Cobra, convertible or not, isn't a willowy noodle of a car because it has an independent rear end.

No, not by that logic; because no one would even confuse a 1970s Mercedes with a 1970s muscle car; nevermind a Mercedes made in the 1990s. Even if the LX cars were just a W210 (which, again, they aren't; which I'll also get to in a second), I have a good feeling that Mercedes put a bit more effort in 1996 into making sure that they could take a more powerful motor without completely overwhelming the chassis than Ford did when they dropped the 428 in the Mustang.

I wasn't saying that they did. I was asking what exactly inherently makes a 2014 GT500, riding on its significantly cheapened Jacques Nasser-era Lincoln floorpan and having nearly 400 more lb-ft torque than any engine the car originally had, any better?

Let's look at that list. So similar suspension setup in the rear (and only the rear) to the one Mercedes has used in pretty much everything since the 190e, same transmission, same computer/diagnostic system, same steering column and same cruise control stalk = same platform. Not that they were designed by the same engineers (the LX car's development mostly taking place after Mercedes had already ransacked Chrysler) of the cars Mercedes already had developed using the same design ideas and some parts shelf stuff, but that the platform was directly derived from it and not a clean sheet like Chrysler repeatedly claimed it was.


Incidentally, the front suspension of an LX car looks absolutely nothing like a W210:






But it is similar to a W220:

I dunno. I wasn't the one drawing a line in the sand between the Challenger (a chassis that isn't actually a repurposed Mercedes one from 1996) and the final S197 Mustang (a chassis that actually was derived from a Lincoln repurposed into a cheaper form) in the context of cars with hundreds of lb-ft more torque than they were supposedly designed in mind for; as if neither company had done anything beyond take the base model and stick the most powerful engine in it.

The point being, of course, that it's pretty meaningless to say on a forum that "I talked to this guy and he says they suck" as an argument; but oh well. I tried.

AMPLE EVIDENCE, Ladies and gentlemen.

So he bought a street car and then immediately broke it trying to use it like his built drag car that he got tired of. That was the final level of succession of the increasingly powerful cars he kept buying to show off before he gave up and started buying trucks.


Not doing wonders here for providing context for why he wasn't just an idiot and that it's instead the car's fault that he broke it within a month, but okay.

Good. Glad you finally brought up something.

Jesus, a recall about an oil leak!?

Oh noes.

This is like a parody at this point. That one guy got a Friday car, and the dealership (that has already had an unspecified screwup in the past) apparently hasn't exactly helped making it better. Entire model is garbage. Pack it up.





Do me a favor though. Type "heat soak Z06" into Google and take a look at what comes up.

Well, you don't seem to be any different than you ever were. Hip hip hooray.

You know, these would be more amusing if you haven't written three essay posts where the only thing you've actually raised was that a recall happened.

No, they're describe as boats because they are still very heavy vehicles. They don't handle as well as a GT350 or ZL1; but since there's more to handling than laptimes and how fast around a skidpad a car goes, yeah. Fine is a good description of how they handle. It isn't as if the other two are flawless across the range.


I mean, I could dig up stuff talking about how fine it handles, but do you even care?

These labels, good lord. You're trying to objectively quantify something handling "well" compared to something handling "fine," "mediocre," and "great;" and your first point of comparison was Porsche's most expensive model?

I wouldn't know. The Camaros I drove didn't have it; nor is it standard equipment across the Mustang and Camaro range.

You shouldn't have wasted your breath. The list of things that are "banned" from NHRA competition has been a sliding scale for years now.

Well, first of all, no it's not. You've posted three links in this thread. One of which was a post full of bad information about the similarity of the LX to the W210, one of which is about a product recall and the other one is about a guy who got a dud that the dealer seemed to have made worse.


Second of all, those problems existing doesn't... uh... mean that Chrysler just threw an 800hp engine into a V6 Challenger.


Finally, and I've alluded to this several times so it's odd that you keep avoiding it: Drive a car like an asshole and it's probably going to break! The original CTS-v would pop rear axles if you hammered on it, the E46 and E36 had infamous rear subframe problems, the R35 GT-R was blowing so many transmissions that Nissan completely changed how the launch control worked within a year.

No, I'm saying that the Challenger and Charger in 2018 are not the Challenger and Charger in 1970; the Challenger in particular being from an infamous crash borne out of the way muscle cars were made at the time. The Charger being from a famous movie was, you know, a joke. This is a point that you raised and you don't even get it.

Evidently not if you're still trying to force it to only be talking about the Hellcat.


This part did give me a laugh, though:

You're so quick on the draw for making gotcha comments that you aren't even acknowledging talking points you raised.

And? You going somewhere with this?

It's hilarious that you put this in as as part of your "reasoning the Challenger sucks" post; as if someone can only drive a Hellcat or Demon or whatever by putting it in first and flooring it at every stoplight.


Are you really that tone deaf?

Nah, I'm afraid I can't let you get away with making a post essentially saying that an F150 is better than a Challenger/Charger at being a pickup, and therefore the Charger/Challenger is bad.

No it's not. It's a figure of speech to represent the lack of interior space in the rear. I could have said the seats were for parcels, not people; but I didn't think you were going to take it literally.

Massive selling cars don't have two quick restyling jobs in three years. Massive selling cars don't start shedding sales to competitors that have been on the market for 8 years. Massive selling cars don't need to rely on fleet sales to keep them a float.

Okay. Score one for me.

I sure hope that the actual-Hellcat-competitor-GT500 comes out and costs 50 large, or this will look pretty foolish.

Magneride is an amazing thing, but it doesn't make a car that weighs over 4000 pounds (as the GT500 is claimed to) a Miata fighter. What it actually does is assist in dampening while driving sportily without necessarily incurring the hard ride when you aren't.

So handling doesn't matter so much when we're talking about your car as a point of comparison. Gotcha.

An inaccurate comparison isn't a logical fallacy. Stop using that word if you don't know what it means.

Also, you were the one who brought up modified cars. That would be why it was a separate point from the bit above, where I quoted you talking about used cars.

I wasn't the one who dropped statements like "I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them."

So far the extent of your facts in this thread, to support your thesis that the Charger/Challenger are terrible, is a single product recall. Saying the people who buy them are tools is not a "fact."

"Tool" being a well known term of endearment, of course.

Yes, a good alternative. Thank you.

False claim? You were the one who brought the Viper up! It's not my problem that you are so clueless to the things you keep claiming that you don't even realize when you are called on them and assume you're being responded to on something else.

Incredulity is the word.

"I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them. If you have, then your argument is even more perplexing"
"I’m more than happy to provide ample evidence of this. Can you provide ample evidence suggesting otherwise, though?"

And another one, in response to someone annoyed that you were telling him the car he owns was garbage saying he doesn't think it's worth responding to you about it:

"You don’t need to. All my points and reasoning are above."

I actually, legitimately laughed at this. There's no way this can't all be a joke. The only other person on the forum with this little self reflection was Interludes.
Until this post I'm quoting literally all you've done is claim that the LX platform is just a W210, that the engine in the Hellcat is bad because your mechanic thinks it sucks and your friend broke his, and the Charger/Challenger aren't good at being flashy cars because they don't do one thing as well as some other flashy cars that aren't even in the same market segment. You literally didn't cite a damn thing for proof until you started linking forum posts (with wrong information that you didn't understand the significance of anyway), a recall posting and another forum post about a guy who had a lemon.


Do you really need to be so right about a car you personally don't like that it's worth telling people, even one's who bought it, that it's garbage and lying about saying you've proven it?

I legitimately don't understand how you can make these sentences so close to each other and not have your fingers melt off.

All those objective things you listed, like "um", "er", and "yeah".

The Challenger seats 5 in a pinch, but very easily seats 4. It's not a secret. The only way it could be better at seating 4 people without getting even larger is if it had rear doors.

Once again not even remotely my point, no. It should go without saying that I don't expect you to reply to my post before I make it, so perhaps think a bit and note that maybe I'm completely unimpressed with the "AMPLE EVIDENCE" and "facts" and "citations" you've brought up to discussion in response to a post you never bothered to actually read before going on a rant; and that that lack of any actual substance in your post to that point was why I didn't expect you to ever start.


And I wasn't wrong, so...

 

Delete

 

Okay, now that finals are behind me, I can take the 1.5-2 hours out of my day to respond to this massive reply which I know you did not expect me to actually dissect.

I'm doing nothing more than what you do in your own arguments; dissecting each part of each point to show any fallacies.

But the article is discussing the Hellephant engine, and the claims you began with at the start had to do with how Dodge was making loud, shouty cars. Common sense would dictate that you are highlighting this fact. Here is your original post in case you've forgotten:

Notice the line "they know most of this stuff is a farce." That's the first sentence. Considering the article is about the engine, I (and I'm sure everyone else) would rightly couple together "this stuff" with what the article is about; the engine.

Notice, too, the line criticizing the companies which are pushing their Turbo 4pot engines as an alternative engines. If you're knocking on the smaller-engine version of these muscle cars then that would again reinforce the notion that you are praising the V8 engines that these Mopar cars are now coming with.

I could really just stop here as you literally disprove the entire rest of your post with just this line in your original post. "Big dumb cars with big shouty looks." and "They do the best they can with what they have on hand." Please tell me what you mean by that if you don't mean to simply imply that they are mostly just poorly made cars on a tight budget with flashy looks and headlines to attract people who don't know better and just want something with flashy looks to show off in.

Except it doesn't, because the only people who even actually care that you have a car with loud flashy looks are the same people who will instantly know that its just a V6. I remember this always sparked debate back in the days of the cool wall.

The people that you are trying to impress with something like that are the ones who don't pay attention to cars in the first place; the ones who will simply scoff at your wildly colored car and not give it a second thought.

I have no problem with it. If that's how you would spend your money then that's fantastic. But the vast majority of people would rather have something with a fresh design underneath, much more practicality, and better fuel economy, which is why the Ford Explorer is one of the hot-selling crossover-SUV-things of this current automotive period.

Firstly, I have already mentioned above how that was not the context of your post, at least, not seemingly so. If you would like to fight about that point to the death then be my guest, I would love to see what you come up with to justify it this time.

Secondly, this is where I have a major irk with how you frame things. I am not throwing a fit. Nobody is throwing a fit. This is a forum. People use forums to discuss topics, regardless of whether they agree or disagree. We have differing opinions, so we are discussing it with arguments. That's how this all works. Otherwise, there wouldn't be many posts on GTP!

The suggestion that I'm in any way throwing a tantrum over here about my distaste for these cars is pretty silly. I'm not a fan of them. People who disagree with me, such as yourself, are welcome to explain why you feel otherwise, which you always do a very good job of (I'm not being sarcastic, either. You always form good arguments which is why I think you find yourself in so many discussions.)

Furthermore, even if I was throwing a fit over this, I don't see why it's necessary in this context. Present a coherent argument and it will quickly become obvious that I'm not able to match it. Throwing things in like this just comes across as small personal attacks more than anything.

Again, it is explained above why I feel as though your entire range was not talking about the entire range. If you're going to insinuate to the death that you were talking about the entire range, then that's fine. I will continue to state that I did not see it as addressing the entire range, with my previous explanation as to why.

Lots of people do. This is a performance car, with flashy looks. Its sister car has a history in NASCAR, its competitors have a history in Trans-Am, and its highest model in the range is aimed squarely at the Drag Strip. It comes from the factory with giant Brembo brakes which are designed to be able to withstand multiple heavy braking zones without fading, and it comes with an entire track apps feature.

I would say that track driving is much more relevant with this car than with most, unless you are implying that the owners, again, are buying Hellcat and Demon models with no further intentions than to drive them back and forth from work.

Let me remind you of what you said:

It would seem obvious that you are implying as though this isn't the case, or else you would not have thrown in the "supposed." If it were truly irrelevant then you would have not addressed it at all.

Furthermore, I feel it is very relevant. Again, there are many people who find it much more logical to buy a car which costs many thousands less and simply spend some of that cash back on upgrading their brand new cars to the same, if not higher, power levels.

(This option is so popular that, in fact, I believe both Chevy and Ford offer dealer options where you can have your car supercharged to these power figures and pick it up with a warranty.)

Your quote was that it "Must be borderline undrivable."

I presented that this is not the case, with proof, since otherwise you would likely respond that my claims are just a farce.

You do this thing where you present me with two options, and then mock me regardless of what I choose to do. If I give proof that you are wrong, I am mocked for trying to "impress you with my car." If I choose not to, then I lose my credibility with you and you mock that, as has happened in countless debates of ours in the past.

You also present it in such a sarcastic tone that I find it kind of rude. It adds nothing to the discussion to be that way. Again, I was simply refuting a claim of yours. If you hadn't made a false claim in the first place then it wouldn't have been necessary.

As I have not driven one (and therefore won't claim to know what it's like to drive, since I would have no grounds to do so) I will present you with the info of somebody who reviews cars for a living.


If you have anything to refute this- another review video, an article in a magazine, a webpage, anythingggg to back up your claim, then I'm happy to read it. Again, I have not driven one, so I am happy to learn anything I can about what it is actually like to drive.

Also, this:

...is really unnecessary. I think next time you could word that in a bit more of a respectful way aside from basically calling me an idiot for no reason.

An 02-07 Impreza utilizes the same platform. The 2005-2014 Mustang uses the same platform. The R35 GT-R from 2007-present uses the same platform. The 488 uses the same platform as the 458. Obviously sometimes these platforms are not fully "new" and are in fact derived from older designs, such as the S197.. Other times, they are completely new. An E60 M5 has a completely different platform than an E39. There will always be some ambiguity as to what truly constitutes a new platform; at one point is an existing one modified to the extent where it is considered something new? That is the very discussion we are having about the Challenger currently. Your perspective on the matter is different than mine.

You are correct, but I was simply refuting your point that apparently a car coming with an engine with high torque inherently makes it a better chassis.

Here is your original quote:

Based on your claims of the high torque Mercedes engine, and that the Ford one was gutless, I fail to see how you were not implying this. I'm not suggesting you're changing your story. I just simply see it in a different way. Again, just as with your claims that you were talking about the entire range (in a thread about the new massive V8 engine) it may just be how I am interpreting it.

The article you linked to claims it as a "clean sheet LX-platform".
As you stated either before or later on, I am not an expert with this, but I would assume that this means both cars share the same chassis and underpinnings for the most part, and then other items (such as the front suspension which you kindly provided diagrams for) are modernized to improve the original chassis.

Also, this list:

still seems to suggest that there are strong similarities between the two which would not be present if it was a separate design altogether. This does not inherently mean that it's bad, but I cannot think of many cars aside from things such as the G-Wagon which can be purchased new in 2018 that are using platforms designed over 20 years ago.

I still fail to see how it isn't a repurposed Mercedes from 1996. If I am wrong about the chassis and such being the same then I am more than happy to concede that I am correct, but it would still seem as though both companies did a very similar move with these existing platforms.

Furthermore, you cite the GT500 quite a bit. That car never saw beyond 662HP from the factory. The new Challengers have an entire 2018 Ford Focus's power on top of that, and similar leaps above in the torque figures as well. It's very hard for me to believe that both of these chassis (including the Challenger one) are not being taken well above what they should.

Again, earlier on when I provided proof to refute a claim of yours, I was mocked. When I don't substantiate these kinds of claims, I am mocked. You always refuse to accept anything I give to you in any form. Even when I admit that you are correct on a point I am simply mocked.

You seem to be so sure of yourself that you cannot accept anything anybody says with any credibility; it seems that you must be correct on every point, which makes debates like these very difficult.

Let me ask you; if I had come back with a video of him saying this himself, what would your response be? Something along the lines of "Oh, so because Jim Bob at Jim Bob performance says so, then it must be true!" in your usual sarcastic tone? At what point is it credible in your eyes?


Here is another example:

It is very disappointing that you took this so far out of context. We had been discussing how you have "yet to speak to any mechanics who have said its inherently flawed." I stated that you probably haven't asked any.

Your statements are just as baseless as mine. However, when I admit that I have no proof for my claims, you mock me, yet CONVENIENTLY leave out the part about how your claims are just as baseless.

Speaking of things you left out, I came across this question I asked you:

How come you decided to leave this question out? I don't have time to go through every post point-by-point and attempt to find what else you've omitted. If you are just going to leave out every question like this that I ask, but instead find the time to sarcastically mock half of what I say, then it is going to be very difficult to continue a debate with you.

I would definitely not refute that he is an idiot. I also would state that it is a testament to the build quality of each car that the Camaro was modified and pushed to hell and back and never had any issues, while the stock from the factory Charger he purchased developed issues so quickly on.

Every car needs attention, and an idiot can mess anything up. But (and this is simply an example to explain my point) I would be pretty sure that it would take an idiot a lot longer to break something known to have good build quality such as a Toyota truck versus something which is known to be inherently flawed and plagued with issues, such as an E60 M5. Give each one to somebody who is clueless and drives the piss out of it and take a guess as to which will be the first to have rod bearing failures, VANOS pump failures, etc.. oh wait.

More like I brought up something that you didn't simply dismiss by making fun of. Thank you.

This brought me to a 404. I am sure that it was something relevant about an oil leak on Fords.

That does not excuse Dodge of making the same mistake on cars that cost $60,000-100,000 though.

Again, I am not sure what you are expecting me to do. You are back to mocking me when I provide evidence. Do you want me to go online and cite every forum post I can find of every owner that is unhappy? Are the other people who had similar issues in that same forum with separate threads directly beneath not sufficient for you?

What do you want me to do?

Oh I am quite aware of the heatsoak issues that plagued the Z06 early on, particularly when driving hard on the track.

Chevy noticed the issue, issued a recall with (I believe) a redesigned hood/something dealing with how air was channeled through the engine bay, and solved the problem. It still should never have been released with this issue in the first place, either.

Sorry to hear that you missed me.

I've done exactly what you always do; going through each of your points and refuting them to the best of my ability, and accepting them when you have valid points.

The fact that you choose to insinuate that all I've stated for "3 essays" is that there was a recall, is not my fault. At least I haven't written an essay's worth of sarcastic, condescending, mocking replies. If you've got an issue with "fluff" then I would suggest you condense your own arguments strictly to what matters as well.

Last I checked, boats do not handle well.

Also on the point about the weight, do you think they could shave this down if they redesigned the platform and started fresh? I'm not stating that it's competitors are far superior; I am simply asking if you believe that they could rid themselves of the "boat" tag if they ditched the LX platform and began anew with a car that ended up lighter, and more nimble?

No, they are not perfect either. You are correct.

Where I disagree is your definition of handling. These are all performance cars, so yes, laptimes and skidpad speeds are very relevant to how the handling will be described.

If you mean to talk about ride quality, then that is something which I would consider to be somewhat different. But again, both of the competitors offer magnetic ride, and offer much lighter chassis, meaning that the cars need not be sprung as stiffly to achieve the same levels of body-roll prevention and stable cornering. I'm not saying they're better, but I fail to see how they could really be any worse in the ride quality department.

Of course I do! I'm always happy to read anything refuting something I say. Its the only way I (and any of us) can learn, broaden our perspectives, and become more knowledgeable.

I also ended the comparison with a Miata, a car which costs 1/4 the price of a Demon.

Fair enough. But I still believe that the fact that these cars at least offer it provides a good alternative to somebody who wants a great compromise between handling and ride quality.

I know Doug DeMuro has reviewed cars with magnetic ride. (including the GT350) Whether or not you find him to be credible, I do not know. But based on the number ofcars he has driven, and how he speaks on magnetic ride, I would say that his high remarks of it at least hold some credibility.

I don't see it as wasting my breath. People at Dodge used it as a selling point in their marketing campaigns. Why would they sell a car so strictly dedicated to being fast down a drag strip, only to advertise that it technically will get you kicked out as soon as you get the time they claimed of sub-10 seconds?

This is also a general rule. Even if you go sub-10 seconds in a Honda Civic, it will still get you banned if you don't have a roll cage.

Dodge could just as easily have taken a video of a run where the car takes 10+ seconds and nobody would really say anything. But instead, they've built a car which, based on their own ad campaigns, seems to be a contradiction to itself, all while highlighting that the reason why it's "banned" is because it's lacking a required safety feature for any car making passes at the speeds which it is capable of.

I've done more than this, but okay.

Also, how is it not? Do you want me to find videos of it? What do you want? How are my links somehow not credible?
By that logic, I could say that youve only posted two links, one which led to a 404 and another which I interpreted as proving my point to an extent.

I'm going to break apart these next three claims because they are so absurd that I can't believe you actually said them.

"Full of bad information"

It is literally a thread in a forum specifically for Challengers.

About a pretty serious issue.

So what about all those other threads directly listed below it which also share similar sentiments? Those are all lemons too huh? Shame.

And for every car which has issues such as this, there is a dependable one which can take idiots driving it much more punishment than others. This is why cars such as MKIV Supras, non-gen X Evos, Terminator Cobras, etc. were known for being able to have the piss driven out of them, while stuff such as EJ25 STIs, E60 M5s, early Coyote 5.0s, early CTS-Vs etc are known for the opposite.


I haven't been avoiding this, I addressed it earlier on. False claims.

Still, you aren't wrong. Any car driven by an asshole is more likely to break. Thats, uh.. pretty common sense? But I'm glad you're making sure we address it again.

No, I don't think you get it. Ford and Chevy are making handling focused, lightened cars which have ample power without overwhelming the chassis.

Chrysler is still following the same ethos of the 60's and 70's of "take a normal sedan and throw a giant torquey engine in it and rip tires apart."

There are journalists who claim this very thing too; I am happy to spend the time tracking down the articles if it will please you.

I'm not entertaining this for the 10th time.

I've acknowledged everything that youve presented to me. I could get into everything that you're doing to avoid my points I'm raising, but I think you're already well aware of them.

I don't need to. Its a rebuttal to your initial argument. It's your turn to go somewhere with it and explain how I'm incorrect, if I am. Since.. you know, that's how this whole thing works.

It absolutely isn't hilarious. There are many people who want something flashy and shouty, but don't need 707 HP in a car, because the will never use it. So why can't they buy something else? What is the point in buying something so quick at quarter miles if you aren't going to use it? They could even get another Challenger with a less powerful engine; I'm asking what the point is to have such a massive amount of power when you can never use it. Based on what you said earlier, they could even apparently buy the V6 model, even though I've already explained why many wouldn't necessarily want to go that far.

I see though. Whenever I bring up a point with similar logic to something you said earlier, its hilarious and tone deaf. But when you say it, its totally reasonable and I'm still the unreasonable one.

Do you really think that highly of yourself?

This is taking my post SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT that I almost don't want to bother.

My point was that you could have a vehicle which is still flashy, performance oriented, but infinitely more practical than the Challenger.

I am NOT saying that an F150 in general is better than a Challenger at being a truck. A normal F150 does not have anything going for it besides the fact that it is a truck. Even while I am typing this I can still barely believe that you actually just boiled down my post to what you apparently did. Address my points in full and break down why the Raptor is not a reasonable competitor, or do not bother at all.

I've been in the back of Camaros on multiple occasions. It really isnt a problem. Your figure of speech doesn't hold much weight.

Cars in this segment have been seeing dying sales for years overall, thanks to the crossover trend. The Mustang and Challenger are subject to this too.

To say otherwise would actually be laughably ignorant. But again, people still drive them every day. Just because you aren't comfortable personally with driving it, does not mean that it suddenly isn't an option for anybody. Hell, even a modern Ford Fiesta doesn't have any visibility out of the back. It's part of the trend we live in with modern cars in the name of safety and crash protection.

You must mean the actual-Demon-competitor-GT500, I believe. In which case, it needs to be somewhere between 70-80k.

I'm well aware of this. But that brings back a point from earlier; don't you think it would be quite beneficial if the Hellcat, or any Challenger for that matter, could offer this same improved dampening for handling while keeping a relatively smooth ride?

Here you go again. I was refuting something you yourself brought up in an argument as to the straight line performance. I went out of my way to state that the Corvette is competent in more than just a straight line, which is why it comes with the pricetag that it does.

If I had said otherwise, you would make some claim as to how ignorant and stupid I am, but when I readily admit a shortcoming before you even bring it up, you take it out of context and simply break it down to frame it as "Oh, your car is exempt from all these other requirements you have because its your car and you're the next W&N with his unbeatable Sunbird."

Seeing as you later explain how you didn't expect me to even respond, I'm sure you never expected me to highlight all the countless times you do this. It's a wonderful tactic.

It is called a False equivalence.

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."

Do not tell me to stop using the term when you yourself are the one who doesn't know what constitutes one.

I also said that you were likely to dismiss it, which is completely reasonable. But again, for many, its a very reasonable alternative. Which is why you still see people buying Fox Bodies for the drag racing scene, or why you see people tracking down E46 and NA Miatas for autocross/road course use. In fact, a 2004 STI is just as quick to 60, if not faster, than its modern day equivalent. For those who dont want/need a bunch of screens and leather seats, its a very viable option. These are simply examples to prove a point, please don't waste your time explaining how this has nothing to do with a challenger.

Youre right. Your statements were just limited to saying that my car is horrible at the track, that I don't know what a car platform is, that I'm making up the power figures of my car, that my mechanic is fake, that the person I spoke of who owned one of these cars is fake, etc.

Please stop acting like you're so innocent of this. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with the whole "The same goes for me to you" statement to begin with.

If all you've gotten out of this is the recall thing then I am terribly sorry.
I could do the same thing as you by saying that the only thing youve done to support your thesis is posting a single link to a webpage which I used to further my own point.[/quote]

Instead of being sarcastic, why don't you enlighten me as to how a $75,000 Corvette C7 Z06 is not an alternative to one of these cars.

Before you say "Number of seats, cargo space, etc." Let me just say that all of those people are welcome to buy a Challenger or Charger, since it is an alternative. What about those who don't need 4 seats? Heaven forbid they consider another fast car in a similar price bracket with different pros and cons!

Here is what you said, as a reminder:

Which adds nothing to the discussion. It is just another sarcastic and condescending reply on your part. And when I call you out on how you aren't providing anything useful and are instead going for sarcastic replies, you insult my intelligence again stating that I am clueless and have no idea what I'm even responding to.

Why don't you actually (and I know this is asking a lot from you at this point) give me a reason as to why my original reasoning is incorrect in your opinion, instead of going on these tirades of how clueless, ignorant, and stupid I apparently am?

Your original quote was about how apparently I think I'm Jay Leno according to you. I responded by saying that you're getting awfully worked up over somebody on the internet when all we're doing is discussing our views on a Dodge.

Considering incredulity roughly means a state of disbelief, I fail to see how that fits in with what we had been discussing.

Dare I say it, maybe you shouldn't use that word if you don't know what it means, especially if you're not even sure of what you're responding to at this point.

This is exactly the same as when you state that you doubt my claims which are unjustified too. I guess the main difference is that I don't just start deleting the questions you pose to me, as I've noticed you've done to me.

Anyways, if this is your logic, then it sounds like you, too, believe you are the authority on this. Which... actually, seems pretty accurate. Hmm, maybe you DO have a point..

YOU DID IT AGAIN!!! Oh boy! ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT JUST ENOUGH CONTEXT!

Here is the last sentence of that post which you oh so thoughtfully and kindly removed.

See how just that one sentence makes my post go from stating that it's useless for him to argue, to me saying that if he has something to add to the discussion then I would be more than happy to hear about it? See how important that ONE SENTENCE is?

If you say it isnt important, then why did you go through the trouble to specifically only quote those first two sentences?

Again, you say later on that you never expected me to respond. So you knowingly set up this post to make me look like this and assumed that I wouldn't show what you're doing. I do not appreciate that.

I promise you that I'm having some laughs at what you're saying too. I'm glad we can share that experience.

Because, based on the sole article that you've posted which works, I still believe to be the case.

Two real life experiences in which I've been told by somebody who I hold in high regard, and then in which I've seen in person, that both help substantiate my claim, yes.

Ignoring the fact that I also offered many alternatives which are in the same market segment, I also feel as though this is a bit of a stretch. So somebody who is looking at one car is only allowed to pick from other cars in that segment? Why can't somebody be torn between a high-powered muscle car, and a high powered muscle'truck'? Why is that such a strange comparison? It's not like I'm over here saying "You know, the Kia Rio would definitely be a more affordable option!"

I fail to see why you take such a big issue with this, but whatever. Maybe if I hadn't also listed competing cars in the same segment, but I did. And then I went the extra mile and gave some options which are a bit different but still viable options, and provided reasoning as to why, whereas you simply replied with comments such as "OH BOY YOU GOT ME THERE".

I started linking forum posts in my third reply to you. Which is the first reply following one of your famous posts where you dissect each part of the person's argument. Once it became obvious that you were taking this seriously (well, at least somewhat) I decided that I would provide evidence with links.

By the way, the only evidence you've provided are a couple photos, and two links, one of which doesn't work.

You've yet to explain how the information was wrong. Please enlighten me. It was in a forum specifically for Challengers.

Unless you're suggesting that Challenger owners don't know what they're talking about when it comes to their own cars, even if they think they do.. hmm, I wonder what word could be used to describe an owner like that.

Ahh back to calling me clueless.

I fully understand the significance of a car which shares much of its foundation with that of another. We've been over this many times. Even after reading your one, working source, I still maintain that I feel as though they share a platform.

We've been over this about 10 times now. But considering its all that your argument stands on, I can understand why you keep bringing it up.

1. I personally do not like it because I feel as though they are overpriced for what you actually get. My main quarrel is with the two models sporting the 6.2SC Hemi, which is the engine that I particularly do not feel is suited for the car, and that based on the experiences in my life, I have reason to doubt is as reliable as the less powerful options.
2. Again, I asked said owner (who does NOT own a 6.2 model) for his input (which you kindly omitted earlier) as if there is somebody who has experience with one and wants to speak about how good theirs is, then I am more than happy to hear about it. That would be probably the most irrefutable source to go against anything that I would have to say, so if @Corsa wishes to speak about it, I'm more than happy to have my mind changed.
3. Do you really need to be so right about a car that you don't even own that it's worth writing multiple-essay length replies to? Because if the answer is yes for me then it is yes for you at this point. Otherwise, I'm unsure why you're going through so much trouble to 'attempt' to disprove me with all the sources you've shown.

Wow. That is a very BOLD (see what I did there?.... I'll grab my coat) claim.

I have proven my stance as best as I can. I cannot 'prove' overall that the car is the way I feel. It's something subjective. I can give my viewpoint, and to add credibility to said viewpoint, I can try to prove it with an argument. You can do the same for your viewpoint. But there is no definitive answer, as in the end it is something truly subjective. There can be a general consensus, but even then, you'll never have 100% of people feel the same way, not on something such as this.

You kind of grouped these in an odd way. My first sentence was stating that I find it kind of unreasonable that you dont care about any of the pros of the camaro all because of the visibility, yet dont seem to accept the converse to be possible, where somebody doesnt care about the visibility because of all the other pros.

You also removed the part where I said "that's a perfectly fine opinion" as well. I was giving credibility to your viewpoint! It is your viewpoint. You provided reasoning why you felt that way, so I accepted it. Then, I offered a different viewpoint, and I'm met with another snarky remark about my fingers burning off. Come on!

This sounds like what an elementary student says after they haven't been paying any attention and the teacher asks them what they've been talking about in class for the last 30 minutes.

I agree that it is nice that it has a seatbelt for a 5th person, although that looks like quite the uncomfortable position to sit in for more than, as you say, a pinch.

As for room, I would say that it looks marginally better, if at all, than a Mustang. I guess it depends on where the front seats are, but you could say that about any car really.

My point being, anybody who can fit in the back seats of this car, could fit in the back of a Mustang or Camaro with a similar amount of effort. Here's a Camaro for reference:

How so?
You initially said "If you were actually capable of doing so I imagine you would have started by now. So, again, anything else?" in reference to me saying that I can go all day with you on this.
I stated that I was very capable of doing so, and in fact, I'm quite happy to do so. But due to my schedule, I have to find the time to write up a proper response to one of these. This contributes as to why my first two posts were shorter, and also as to why I have taken a while to respond to this. So, I gave you reasons why it had taken me a while. Again, do you understand what you're even replying to now? Do you know what your own point actually is? What was it?

Sorry to disappoint you.

That's fine by me, I didn't expect you to do anything more than what you've done, which is literally brush off anything I bring up, reply with sarcastic remarks, and take things out of context to frame me to look like I have no idea what I'm saying.

I guess that I should say the same to you. I'm not impressed with the two sources that you have posted. I did like the photos of the front suspension, but that's not really doing anything for your argument as a whole.

I did read it, actually. Explained my reasoning at the very top of this post, to refute you stating that I never read your post and didn't understand that you were talking about the whole range.

Again, I provided my opinion and perspective, this is a forum, I know you always debate, and I made a conscious choice to refute what you said with my own viewpoint because I knew that we would be able to have a discussion about it. If you wish to classify it as a rant, then I guess I'm not really able to stop you.
[quote
and that that lack of any actual substance in your post[/quote]
You're correct, it took me until my third post to do so. The exact same could be said for you too, though. You literally posted nothing aside from personal viewpoints up until your third post on it too. So now let's look at the substance provided since then:

I have provided links to forums, news articles, car review videos, personal experiences from somebody who has owned one and somebody who works on one, photos, and I have tried my best to thoroughly explain everything I have said, including all of my replies to your points. I have also credited you on multiple occasions for having valid points, but I guess you're right.

You telling me over and over and over and over and over how clueless I am, how I dont know what a car platform is, what a logical fallacy is, how I don't even know what points I'm talking about are, paired with your one working link to a website which I used to further my own point, is definitely filled with substance in comparison.

Again, my response detailed exactly why I hadn't evaluated further to that point, which is why I immediately followed up with a post containing sources and citations.

I'm a man of my word.

You know, I was going to try and leave with some nice conclusion for you, as you've been doing for me. But I know my place on this forum. I know that I am dispensable, replaceable. I'm a very insignificant member on here. And I would really rather not risk getting points, or a suspension/ban. So I will let your own words speak for me.

You ending your post with a declaration that you are right says everything that I need to know about this discussion. You are so deeply in pursuit of being right, that I can never change your mind. Earlier, you tried to say the same of me. But I have, on many occasions, acknowledged your good points and conceded that you are correct (even though you've omitted some of those gestures in your response to make it appear as though I didn't). However, I don't think I can expect the same from you. And that's fine. It doesn't irk me. I'm happy to keep trying to prove my points, I'm happy to weather your remarks of how clueless I am, and most importantly, I am happy to be wrong, when people bring up valid points. If I don't feel like I can counter something, then I'm happy to admit so, which I've already done multiple times in this conversation. Can you say that you're happy to be wrong too, though?
Because if not, then I would say that you probably can find a better use of your time.[/quote]

 

I wish to change no one's mind, if we were all the same the world would be quite boring, I have an open mind and love hearing other owner opinions.
The wife and I bought our 2017 R/T scat pack charger in I believe October of 2016.
We wanted the Challenger but opted for the Charger because we have a 12 year old, the 4 door is just easier.
It has the 6.4/392 almost 500hp, I can't complain. Yes it was expensive, but it now has 29,000 miles and has not even coughed. The only issue I had was the driver seat started squeaking over rough road, Dodge replaced the entire seat.

I love it, a monster when you want it to be, or a quiet grand tourer.
I haven't driven it very hard, fastest it's seen is 120 then I backed out. I'm too old and don't want to endanger any one else on the road, but it's good fun 0-60.
I feel all cars in this bracket are too expensive considering what I could have built with the same money, but I paid for the turn key convenience so can't complain.

I wish you all a good day and happy battling!