Last week Chrysler announced the starting price for the Dodge Challenger, which starts at $40,095. Orders started yesterday and now we have more details on what to expect now and in the near future for Dodge's new muscle car.
First off the options list for the Dodge Challenger SRT8 is short with only three initial options. $50 gets you summer tires and an extra $890 adds the MyGig infotainment/navigation system. Lastly an additional $950 adds the sunroof to the package.
The initial 2008 Dodge Challengers will all be SRT8 models with five speed automatic transmissions. When the 2009 Challengers hit the streets the SRT8 models will have an optional six-speed manual transmission. The models equipped with the manual transmission also comes with a new Hill Start Assist (HSA) feature. A 3.5L V6 and 5.7L HEMI V8 will also become available.
Sometime in 2009 Dodge is going to release a convertible version and the 3.5L V6 will be upgraded to a new 4.0L Phoenix engine in 2011. The HEMI engine in the SRT8 is also expected to get an upgrade in the future to a 6.4L engine instead of the current 6.1L. This will bump up horsepower to between 450 to 500.
Full Story: Motor Authority
Related Stories:
2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Actually Starts at $40,095...Is it Worth it?
2008 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Starts at $37,995 and Orders Start Next Week!
2009 Dodge Challenger Revealed Thanks to a Great Camera Phone
Comments (36)
Wow, another overpriced niche performance car (that's also 1,000lbs too heavy).
Posted by Noya | December 4, 2007 11:06 AM
Posted on December 4, 2007 11:06
At least its not Fugly.
Posted by Uncle_C | December 4, 2007 11:21 AM
Posted on December 4, 2007 11:21
Wow another stupid comment thats 1000 brain cells short of credibility.
Posted by Chaser | December 4, 2007 11:40 AM
Posted on December 4, 2007 11:40
What is the curb weight? 2 door coupe V8 guessing 3300-3400 lbs. Oh wait, that was when the car was still somewhat JUST a car. I expect nothign less than 3800 lbs here.
Posted by Carnut57 | December 4, 2007 12:06 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 12:06
Back in the day of the original Challenger, it may have had a lower curb weight, but it also had a lot body flex and over a short period of time became a rattle trap. If you want a nice ridgid platform and tight build quality plus better saftey in a collision, that comes with a price, Extra Weight. For todays vehicles the new Challenger, if say is about 3,700 lbs is probably at a good weight, take away too much weight from the structure of the vehicle and you will have body flex, it will become a squeak and rattle trap, and probably not as well in collisions. Yes you could use more exotic metals to save weight, that will add even more cost.
Posted by Ozric | December 4, 2007 12:20 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 12:20
Ozric:
I agree with you on this one. Recently a lot of people have been concerned about crash safety, hence the ratings being shouted amongst commercials.
Safe and rigid cars aren't cheap to make. It isn't like the old days where you could slap some sheet metal and an engine together and call it a day. I used to have a 1992 Mazda Protege, 2350lbs. Now I have a 2007 MINI Cooper S (amazing car, drive before you bash), which is shorter, but 250lbs heavier.
The MINI has airbags all over, and is a very rigid ride. I doubt the navigation is responsible for all the extra weight. Nobody wants to buy a car with two star crash ratings any more, and besides, who would buy them, besides the extreme car enthusiast?
Posted by Joan of Arc | December 4, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 12:39
"The models equipped with the manual transmission also comes with a new Hill Start Assist (HSA) feature."
Are you frickin' kidding me? Don't drive a manual if you don't know how to handle starting on an incline.
Posted by Polynikes | December 4, 2007 12:46 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 12:46
so your saying subaru should have started making man cars back in the 80s because I remember my old subi had hill starter on it.
Posted by unknown | December 4, 2007 1:16 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 13:16
hsa, I think you call it an ebrake.
Posted by mf | December 4, 2007 1:40 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 13:40
Don't get your hopes up for below 4000lb curb weight: this thing is as large as a Magnum, and those were more than 4000lbs. Also, Chris (another poster here at TR) found numbers stating 4200lbs explicitly.
Posted by Allen | December 4, 2007 2:07 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 14:07
4200lbs and as large as the Magnum? If it was a 4 door family hauler that would be one thing - even that's pushing things. I have a 4 door Acura sedan that weights 3500 lbs and it did excellent in crash tests so I don't buy that argument. What a waste to have all that mass in a two door. It needs to go on a diet.
Posted by D | December 4, 2007 2:25 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 14:25
Expect this car to be pretty much the same weight as a Nissan GT-R. The 300c Srt-8s weigh 4100lbs. This car is a lot shorter, only has two doors, and is presumably free of a great deal of the large luxury car accuterments the 300c is stuffed with. Just the smaller size should drop the weight a couple-few hundred pounds.
Posted by Tuomas | December 4, 2007 3:18 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 15:18
$40k+ for this thing?!? I likley wouldn't have bought one anyway but that is in crazy money territory for a Dodge. I just hope GM doesn't try this crap with the Camaro.
Posted by JTG | December 4, 2007 4:02 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:02
Come on people, stop complaining about the weight. The Lotus Exige weighs 2015 lbs and is a fast car, the Bugatti Veyron weighs 4162 and is a faster car. I for one really don't give a crap about how much the car weighs or how well it handles, what I care about is that it looks like an old muscle car.
This is a good remake, it's not some B.S. new muscle car wanna-be. It takes the style of the 60's and places it into a new car. I for one can call the remake a muscle car.
Posted by Larry | December 4, 2007 4:05 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:05
they dare charge you $50 on a $40,000 car for summer tires?
Posted by zzz | December 4, 2007 4:07 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:07
Does anyone know if they are making a Right Hand Drive version for to export to other countries ????????????
Posted by Peanut | December 4, 2007 4:28 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:28
"Polynikes:
"The models equipped with the manual transmission also comes with a new Hill Start Assist (HSA) feature."
Are you frickin' kidding me? Don't drive a manual if you don't know how to handle starting on an incline"
-- I guess Mercedes-Benz still has some interest in Chrysler after all. HSA is standard on all of MB's SUV lines.
It has nothing to do with if you know how to drive manual, it is a safety feature.
Funny thing is all the non technical people buying this car will think the brakes went out because once HSA engages the brake petal loses feed back and drops to the floor....
Posted by Andrew | December 4, 2007 4:29 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:29
Another retro car. First the Mustang went retro. Then the new Camaro is retro. Now the new Challenger is retro. I guess old is new again. :)
Posted by TomLeeM/BigWarpGuy | December 4, 2007 4:32 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:32
4200? again with that number.
The amount of sheetmetal and glass this car is missing in comparison to the magnum, is enough to offset any of the gains it could get from other styling choices. There is no way this thing will weigh 4200.
Posted by mf | December 4, 2007 4:33 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 16:33
D
With all due respect, An Acura does not need a body and structure that can handle 400-500+ HP and the associated torque, hence it can be lighter
mf
4200 is possible, it may not have as much sheet metal and glass as the Magnum, but the Magnum was never expected to have as much HP and Torque as the Challenger. A 4 Door vehicle has the extra structure of the framework for the rear doors to help it be more solid, this does not exist with the Challenger as it is a 2 door.
Posted by Ozric | December 4, 2007 5:07 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 17:07
"If you want a nice ridgid platform and tight build quality plus better saftey in a collision, that comes with a price, Extra Weight."
No it doesn't. There are strong, light weight materials. Car companies just (normally) refuse to use them.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | December 4, 2007 5:39 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 17:39
how about the new mustang? its lighter than the challenger, and its body it rigid. if this thing weights anything over 3800, then its going to need the extra power to beat a mustang gt. a charger r/t is slower than a mustang. i think that explains what weight does for performance. other than acceleration, extra weight effects, braking and handling. you have to have stiffer springs to get it to handle just as good at the competition, which adds weight, and bigger brakes to to stop all that sprung weight, which adds even more weight. power-weight ratio is an important ingredient in a cars overall performance.
Posted by nate | December 4, 2007 6:34 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 18:34
Remy LeBeau:
You are correct, but non are cheaper than good old steel. This a Muscle Car, that will probably sell in low volume, not a high volume vehicle (where tooling of other metals pays off) or a expensive Luxury Sports Coupe
Nate,
I do not have dimensional specs for the Challanger and Mustang, but it looks as if the Challenger is a bigger car than the Mustang, especially in the length of the front end (longer hood), looks a bit wider as well.
Posted by Ozric | December 4, 2007 6:55 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 18:55
"You are correct, but non are cheaper than good old steel."
Yes, but that also results in a car that is heavier, slower, and gets worse mpg, and doesn't handle as well.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | December 4, 2007 8:43 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 20:43
Nate:
A Charger SRT8 is faster than a Mustang GT. While I'm sure the ford will boost the HP of the Stang neither may be much of a match for the base V8 LS3 Camaro which is what Chevy is currently reporting. Sadly as in the late 60's we are in the final hours of resurgence super high performance cars. The new minimum fuel standards are going to nerf performance here in the US. This may be the beginning of the end for the internal combustion engine dominance. So for all of our sakes lets up it goes up in crazy fast bang.
Posted by RX-7 Guy | December 4, 2007 8:57 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 20:57
"Chaser- Wow another stupid comment thats 1000 brain cells short of credibility."
Hillbilly, your comment has nothing to do with the car...so who's comment is a waste of bandwidth?
Posted by Noya | December 4, 2007 10:08 PM
Posted on December 4, 2007 22:08
Remy LeBeau
"Yes, but that also results in a car that is heavier, slower, and gets worse mpg, and doesn't handle as well."
Also true, but this is a Muscle Car, handeling is not going to be it's strong point anyhow. Lots of torque and straight line acceleration will be it's strong point. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times will probably be more important to buyers of this car than any other spec. MPG will not be of much concern to a Muscle Car owner either.
Posted by Ozric | December 5, 2007 12:03 AM
Posted on December 5, 2007 00:03
40K for 4000 lbs? Are they selling this bloated whale by the pound? American automakers are getting dumber and dumber...well, maybe not just the automakers.
Posted by bushforprez | December 5, 2007 3:36 AM
Posted on December 5, 2007 03:36
"Also true, but this is a Muscle Car, handeling is not going to be it's strong point anyhow. Lots of torque and straight line acceleration will be it's strong point. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times will probably be more important to buyers of this car than any other spec. MPG will not be of much concern to a Muscle Car owner either."
Yes, but people other than drunken hillbillies who've won the lottery will buy it if it CAN go around a corner and doesn't have to stop for gas every 15 minutes.
Yes, I realize those are exaggerations, but the point is still the same. If they built a better car, more people will buy it and they will make more money.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | December 5, 2007 7:09 AM
Posted on December 5, 2007 07:09
Remy LeBeau
This car is being built for two reasons, one it is mostly for the people that lived in the Muscle Car era and two, to get people in the showrooms and sell other vehicles. If people want a car that can go around a corner better and go even faster, they will get a Viper or a Corvette. Muscle Cars were never about great handeling and never about good fuel economy. I have worked in automotive manufacturing foir over 15 years and this car will not make Chrysler any great amout of money in and of itself, it is low volume and they will be lucky if the cost of tooling pays itself offf before people loose intrest in it. The Mustang does not make Ford a lot of money either. Bread and Butter cars is what makes money such as the Fusion, Taurus, Impala, Malibu, 300M, Trucks and other high volume vehicles. These types of cars do not have a high profit margin like trucks and everyday cars. It is definalty going to be a niche vehicle.
Posted by Ozric | December 5, 2007 11:32 AM
Posted on December 5, 2007 11:32
"Muscle Cars were never about great handeling and never about good fuel economy."
That's because 40 years ago American car companies couldn't figure out how to get a car to turn. These days they do - so there's no excuse for them not to.
Posted by Remy LeBeau | December 5, 2007 1:19 PM
Posted on December 5, 2007 13:19
To be fair, people are confusing 70's muscle cars with 90's muscle cars. Most 70's cars couldn't turn very well at all, but the 90's cars turned very well. A '91 Trans Am with WS6 would pull .80-.90 G from the factory, depending on tires. I know because I owned one.
The Porsche 944 Turbo and 911 of the time had similar numbers at twice the price. My coworker at the time had the Porsche and I liked that car too. We used to race from work. It was always close, and we both won our share. Great fun!
Both 'sides' need to stop stereotyping and just love the performance. I can't be the only engineer on here.
Posted by Kell | December 5, 2007 6:12 PM
Posted on December 5, 2007 18:12
It looks pretty cool and it has plenty of pony's but it needs some chrome...
Posted by Hunter | December 5, 2007 6:45 PM
Posted on December 5, 2007 18:45
Its definitely going to be a cool car but I have 2 questions (or rather concerns). First, how quick is it going to be? I could care less about the weight but what I want to know is where will the power to weight ratio land and will this thing be able to hold its own against other vehicles in the $40k range (or even $30k and less range)? If it has a power to weight ratio similar to the Charger SRT8 then it might wind up being served by stock Mustang GT.
My second question, what will the dealer ADM’s be and how long will it last? I really hope we don’t see the same ridiculous mark-up’s that happened with the Shelby GT500 Mustang (wish factory direct ordering was a reality). Hopefully as enough competition enters the market the ADM’s will be short lived.
No matter how you look at it we are definitely in the next big Muscle Car boom and that’s a win for everyone!
Posted by Chris | December 6, 2007 12:08 PM
Posted on December 6, 2007 12:08
Weight? Buy a Lotus Exige S and call it a day! 0-60mph in 4.1sec!!!
Posted by The Don | December 6, 2007 2:25 PM
Posted on December 6, 2007 14:25
Nice to see people read allpar for their information. Credit would be nice, too.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html
Posted by Dave | January 6, 2008 8:13 PM
Posted on January 6, 2008 20:13