GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,246
- GTPHQ
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.
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?)
I disagree, chiefly because they’re actually pretty awful.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.
Except they aren't. Anything else?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.
Id love to see you try.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.
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.Id love to see you try.
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.Underneath the flashy exteriors is a chassis that was never designed with 800 HP in mind back in the 90s.
I've yet to speak to a mechanic who says they have an inherent problem in their design.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.
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.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.
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:Everybody else has moved on to proper sports cars, Chrysler is still making muscle cars.
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:Here are some cars that do everything you’re praising them for in a much better way.
Seats more than two people in a much better way. Presumably.-Corvette Z06/ZR1
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.-F150 Raptor
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.-Camaro ZL1/Z28/whatever the special new model of the week is.
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.-Shelby GT350/GT350R,
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.and assumedly the new GT500 once it finally gets here.
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.You could even include some of the used cars from yesteryear
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.even though I feel like it is a relevant argument
Presumably not your friend, though.Their cars are garbage. Overpriced. Driven by tools.
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: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?
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 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.
OH BOY YOU SURE GOT ME!Also, citation on the car being discontinued due to lack of popularity. The Mustang is redesigned every 10 years, UNLIKE the Challenger and Charger.
Oh.like the 2014 GT500, Vipers, etc.
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 would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them.
If you were actually capable of doing so I imagine you would have started by now. So, again, anything else?I can go with you allllll day on this one.
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)
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?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.
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.So the 2014 GT500, sitting on it's cheapened-but-still-largely-Lincoln LS floorpan except with a crappier suspension setup,
Nope. The fact I use R888Rs probably helps though.must be just as bad with it's 630 lb-ft, right?
Your Mustang, with it's supposed Challenger Demon power numbers,
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?must be borderline undriveable,
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.flexing and skitting around like a Terminator Cobra convertible.
So, by that logic, 70’s Muscle cars must have GREAT chassis, since they were given so much torque when they came out, right?Except the Mercedes at least immediately had an engine with over 450 lb-ft installed (compared to the Lincoln which was always pretty gutless)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ch...nger-mercedes-connection-37181/?t=37181&=1.. 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 would be surprised if you’ve asked any to begin with.I've yet to speak to a mechanic who says they have an inherent problem in their design.
His source of income is his mommy and daddy, he spends half of his money at a casino and half on his cars.Sure is great that your friend (who is definitely not a tool like so many other Hellcat owners)
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)finally found a car that he can beat the hell out of and not have it fail.
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.This is such a meaningless clarification that I'm impressed you made it with a straight face.
You just set yourself up here.The current Challenger and Charger are no less a modern car than either of the other two.
That must be why they’re described as “boats”, right?They handle fine,
Better than the magnetic ride now found on its competitors?ride fine,
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.the brakes are good,
I will not argue here. Modern cars are extremely safe, and I think that’s something to celebrate more than anything.they are safe,
That would explain why they initially were snapping rear axles like nobody’s business, correct? Citation in one of the above links from earlier.and they don't just slap the biggest engine they could in them with no regard to upgrading anything else.
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.They're both bigger and heavier then them, but that does not make them this:
I did read your post.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:
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.Seats more than two people in a much better way. Presumably.
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.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.
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.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.
Well I’m glad we can at least agree on that.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.
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.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.
Again, two points.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
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.but since they don't make that anymore it's not really relevant to a conversation about new cars in 2018.
Another logical fallacy, an inaccurate comparison.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.
Primarily, irrelevant to the argument at hand.Presumably not your friend, though.
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.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:
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.Those people, but definitely not you and definitely not your friend who in fact bought one, are apparently just dudebro douchebags.
Me disagreeing with the car they purchase =/= me resenting them.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.
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.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?
I love how when somebody presents you with facts about a false claim of yours, you react with a middle schooler response.OH BOY YOU SURE GOT ME!
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.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.
Please show me where I suggested I’m the authority on thi.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.
Not caring about things that make it better... that’s new.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.
Thats a perfectly fine opinion.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.
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!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.
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.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.
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).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.
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.tl;dr:
If you were actually capable of doing so I imagine you would have started by now. So, again, anything else?
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.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.
Their cars are garbage.
You don’t need to. All my points and reasoning are above. If you disagree then I’d love to hear your experience.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.
Because that's what I was talking about from the start.Why is the whole range relevant?
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.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.
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.Does the AWD, 4400 lb V6 Challenger stir your soul like that?
Oh, you mean in the context of the post I initially made mentioning offhand exactly that that you threw a fit about? Got you.Talking about the whole range is irrelevant in this context.
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.A rental-car level Challenger/Camaro/Mustang is a completely different discussion. We’re on the opposite end of the spectrum with this Conversation
No I didn't, because who gives a flying 🤬 about track driving?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.
I'm not doubtful. I just don't actually care. It's not relevant.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
That picture did it. Now I am definitely super impressed with your Mustang.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?
View attachment 777980
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:This is actually a pretty horrible example as the Terminator Cobra is actually equipped with IRS.
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.So, by that logic, 70’s Muscle cars must have GREAT chassis, since they were given so much torque when they came out, right?
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?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
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.https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.challengertalk.com/forums/f5/new-challenger-mercedes-connection-37181/?t=37181&=1
Seems like enough of a connection to me.
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.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.
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.I would be surprised if you’ve asked any to begin with.
AMPLE EVIDENCE, Ladies and gentlemen.I can’t do much to substantiate my own claims
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.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)
Good. Glad you finally brought up something.However, I have this to present to back up my claims on failures and major quality issues with these cars:
Jesus, a recall about an oil leak!?
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.
Well, you don't seem to be any different than you ever were. Hip hip hooray.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 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.You just set yourself up here.
Here we go!
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.That must be why they’re described as “boats”, right?
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?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.
I wouldn't know. The Camaros I drove didn't have it; nor is it standard equipment across the Mustang and Camaro range.Better than the magnetic ride now found on its competitors?
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.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.
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.That would explain why they initially were snapping rear axles like nobody’s business, correct? Citation in one of the above links from earlier.
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.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.
Evidently not if you're still trying to force it to only be talking about the Hellcat.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.”
You're so quick on the draw for making gotcha comments that you aren't even acknowledging talking points you raised.Maybe you should re-read your own post?
And? You going somewhere with this?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.
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.What if somebody just wants something flashy? And they aren’t looking for a quarter mile killer?
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.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.
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.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.
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.Point 2: The Camaro is a massive selling car. Even rental car companies rent them out like crazy.
Okay. Score one for me.I know the visibility is bad.
I sure hope that the actual-Hellcat-competitor-GT500 comes out and costs 50 large, or this will look pretty foolish.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)
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.But I can also guarantee that the magnetic ride suspension will work wonders in aiding this.
So handling doesn't matter so much when we're talking about your car as a point of comparison. Gotcha.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.
An inaccurate comparison isn't a logical fallacy. Stop using that word if you don't know what it means.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.
I wasn't the one who dropped statements like "I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them."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
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."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.
Me disagreeing with the car they purchase =/= me resenting them.
Please show me where I suggest that I hate the owners of these cars.
Yes, a good alternative. Thank you.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.
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.I love how when somebody presents you with facts about a false claim of yours, you react with a middle schooler response.
Incredulity is the word.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.
"I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them. If you have, then your argument is even more perplexing"Please show me where I suggested I’m the authority on thi.
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.So far, I’ve presented an argument backed with citations and proof.
I legitimately don't understand how you can make these sentences so close to each other and not have your fingers melt off.Not caring about things that make it better... that’s new.
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
All those objective things you listed, like "um", "er", and "yeah".So, should they still not care about everything else that makes it an objectively better car?
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.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).
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.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'm doing nothing more than what you do in your own arguments; dissecting each part of each point to show any fallacies.Oh my. There sure is a lot to unpack here.
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:Because that's what I was talking about from the start.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Oh, you mean in the context of the post I initially made mentioning offhand exactly that that you threw a fit about? Got you.
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.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.
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.No I didn't, because who gives a flying 🤬 about track driving?
Let me remind you of what you said:I'm not doubtful. I just don't actually care. It's not relevant.
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.Your Mustang, with it's supposed Challenger Demon power numbers,
Your quote was that it "Must be borderline undrivable."That picture did it. Now I am definitely super impressed with your Mustang.
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.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.
...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.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
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.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.
Here is your original quote: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?
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.Except the Mercedes at least immediately had an engine with over 450 lb-ft installed (compared to the Lincoln which was always pretty gutless)
The article you linked to claims it as a "clean sheet LX-platform".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:
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.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
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.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.
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.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.
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.AMPLE EVIDENCE, Ladies and gentlemen.
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.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 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.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.
More like I brought up something that you didn't simply dismiss by making fun of. Thank you.Good. Glad you finally brought up something.
This brought me to a 404. I am sure that it was something relevant about an oil leak on Fords.
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?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.
Oh I am quite aware of the heatsoak issues that plagued the Z06 early on, particularly when driving hard on the track.Do me a favor though. Type "heat soak Z06" into Google and take a look at what comes up.
Sorry to hear that you missed me.Well, you don't seem to be any different than you ever were. Hip hip hooray.
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.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.
Last I checked, boats do not handle well.No, they're describe as boats because they are still very heavy vehicles.
No, they are not perfect either. You are correct.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.
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 mean, I could dig up stuff talking about how fine it handles, but do you even care?
I also ended the comparison with a Miata, a car which costs 1/4 the price of a Demon.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?
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 wouldn't know. The Camaros I drove didn't have it; nor is it standard equipment across the Mustang and Camaro range.
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?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.
I've done more than this, but okay.Well, first of all, no it's not. You've posted three links in this thread.
"Full of bad information"One of which was a post full of bad information about the similarity of the LX to the W210
About a pretty serious issue.one of which is about a product recall
So what about all those other threads directly listed below it which also share similar sentiments? Those are all lemons too huh? Shame.and the other one is about a guy who got a dud that the dealer seemed to have made worse.
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.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 don't think you get it. Ford and Chevy are making handling focused, lightened cars which have ample power without overwhelming the chassis.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.
I'm not entertaining this for the 10th time.Evidently not if you're still trying to force it to only be talking about the Hellcat.
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.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.
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.And? You going somewhere with this?
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.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?
This is taking my post SO FAR OUT OF CONTEXT that I almost don't want to bother.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Okay. Score one for me.
You must mean the actual-Demon-competitor-GT500, I believe. In which case, it needs to be somewhere between 70-80k.I sure hope that the actual-Hellcat-competitor-GT500 comes out and costs 50 large, or this will look pretty foolish.
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?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.
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.So handling doesn't matter so much when we're talking about your car as a point of comparison. Gotcha.
It is called a False equivalence.An inaccurate comparison isn't a logical fallacy. Stop using that word if you don't know what it means.
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.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.
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.I wasn't the one who dropped statements like "I would be amazed if you’ve ever even actually driven any of them."
If all you've gotten out of this is the recall thing then I am terribly sorry.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.
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.Yes, a good alternative. Thank you.
Here is what you said, as a reminder: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.
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.OH BOY YOU SURE GOT ME!
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.Incredulity is the word.
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."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?"
YOU DID IT AGAIN!!! Oh boy! ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE YOU CONVENIENTLY LEAVE OUT JUST ENOUGH CONTEXT!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."
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 disagree then I’d love to hear your experience.
I promise you that I'm having some laughs at what you're saying too. I'm glad we can share that experience.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.
Because, based on the sole article that you've posted which works, I still believe to be the case.Until this post I'm quoting literally all you've done is claim that the LX platform is just a W210
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.that the engine in the Hellcat is bad because your mechanic thinks it sucks and your friend broke his
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!"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.
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.You literally didn't cite a damn thing for proof until you started linking forum posts
You've yet to explain how the information was wrong. Please enlighten me. It was in a forum specifically for Challengers.(with wrong information
Ahh back to calling me clueless.that you didn't understand the significance of anyway)
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.a recall posting and another forum post about a guy who had a lemon.
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.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
Wow. That is a very BOLD (see what I did there?.... I'll grab my coat) claim.and lying about saying you've proven it?
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.I legitimately don't understand how you can make these sentences so close to each other and not have your fingers melt off.
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.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.
How so?Once again not even remotely my point, no.
Sorry to disappoint you.It should go without saying that I don't expect you to reply to my post before I make it
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.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
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.to discussion in response to a post you never bothered to actually read
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.before going on a rant;
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.to that point
I'm a man of my word.was why I didn't expect you to ever start.
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.And I wasn't wrong, so...
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.
Off to Google! Pretty sure someone put a Hemi in one...And I'm just sitting here waiting for someone to stuff this engine in a Fiat 500.