I just got done driving the new Dodge Challenger SRT8 this week. And I fell in love with it. The styling snaps your eyes right to it, the proportions are gorgeous, and the performance numbers are breathtaking. But it's even more visceral than that.The exhaust note is incredible. Put the hammer down and you get a timpani of hammers in return. The pistons pound out a symphony of sounds, and it sounds just as good backing out of the gas and it does jumping on it.
Driving this car is like driving a fighter plane. If Ford has the equivalent of the P-51 Mustang, then Dodge just built the equivalent of the P-47 Thunderbolt. It's that kind of brute.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to continue reading this week's editorial.
The folks at Dodge brought us out to Willow Springs race track to put the Challenger through its paces, which is the best way to test drive a performance car. It's these kinds of press launches that make me love my job. And yet, in the back of my mind I had the nagging feeling that, in a way, it was like they were taking us to the Jurassic Zoo so we could go pet the dinosaurs.
We've seen this sort of thing happen before. In the early 1970's, sales of muscle cars came to an abrupt end when emission controls, soaring gas prices and crippling insurance rates put an end to one of the most glorious eras in automotive performance. Today, it's déjà vu all over again. The auto industry is facing intensely strict fuel economy and CO2 regulations, and gasoline prices are higher than they've ever been. Can there be any question that the current horsepower war is about to come crashing to an end?
Of course, it's not over until it's over. When the Camaro comes out later this year, I've got to believe Chevy will do everything in its power to top the 425 hp available in the Challenger's 6.1 L HEMI. And then the Mustang will need something to top that. And then Dodge has a +500 hp 6.4 L version of the HEMI in the works to trump whatever they do. Don't they see what's about to happen?If it were just about gas prices I wouldn't be too worried. After all, petrol in Europe already tops $7 a gallon in most countries, and the horsepower war is raging over there, too. But that war is being fought in the upper echelons of the market. The difference in the U.S. is that it's also being fought at prices that are not too far above the average MSRP.
Actually, the price of the Challenger SRT-8 is higher than the $37,995 MSRP that Dodge is reporting. Their press materials forget to mention a $2,100 gas guzzler tax, meaning this is really a $40,000 car.
But none of that will hurt sales-for now. Dodge already has 11,000 orders for the 6,400 Challengers SRT-8s it'll build this year. And there are a lot of rich movie and television and sports stars on the list who are not going to drop off just because of a gas guzzler tax, or because gas prices are touching $4 a gallon.
But in the not too distant future, CAFE and CO2 regs are going to drag these pony cars to the brink of extinction. Or at least the chest-thumping V8 versions. That's probably why GM let it leak out that it's already considering a turbo-4 for the Camaro. And why there are V6 versions of all these pony cars.
But here's my question: would you buy an emasculated version of a "muscle" car with a four-banger? Or one with batteries and electric motors? Or a fuel cell? Or does the industry need a new definition as to what constitutes muscle?
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Last week's show: "Ad it Up"
Audi A3 TDI Clubsport Quattro concept
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
First Drive: 2009 Ford Escapes, more of almost everything
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Todd @ Apr 11th 2008 6:07PM
"...But here's my question: would you buy an emasculated version of a "muscle" car with a four-banger? "
Um, no. But I would buy a Smart with a Hayabusa engine in it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi_CgGGDglY
J.Crew @ Apr 11th 2008 6:44PM
That is awsome!
geo.stewart @ Apr 11th 2008 7:09PM
yes, I love old mustangs and camaros and firebirds, and even 90's versions but at the end of the day I want something small, lightweight, ad quick so I can dart through traffic if I need to and avoid accidents rather than have something that will provide infinite protection.
TriShield @ Apr 11th 2008 6:14PM
I wouldn't touch a muscle car (or any huge car or vehicle) with a four cylinder engine.
Enjoy these uniquely and proudly American rides while you can folks. Then covet them after they're gone.
Justin @ Apr 11th 2008 6:20PM
I believe sound matters. People only talk about looks and performance generally, but in a car like this, the v8 sound is a whole seperate driving experience from any boosted 4 or 6 cylinder.
It's still good to have the economy models of course.
TriShield @ Apr 11th 2008 6:24PM
These things are like Coke. If you screw with the formula too much you don't have Coke anymore.
Everett @ Apr 11th 2008 6:31PM
Therefore, a four banger Challenger = Crystal Pepsi.
mk @ Apr 11th 2008 6:33PM
If only the government would leave well enough alone.
This sort of thing is nowhere in the enumerated powers of the US constitution.
Take any topic. Find the problems going on with it...
chances are the government started those problems, and is creating more problems by try and fix them.
Our rights, milk, honey, money, or heath do not flow down from the government on high. They are granted to people by our very definition. Government cannot possess rights, so how can it grant them to the people?
Reagan was right. The government is the problem, not the solution.
If the government would leave well enough alone, and simply do their constitutionally bound AND limited duties to protect people from outright crime, fraud, and external attacks, then we would be free to let our purchasing power decide which cars survive and which ones don't. Or any other product.
The market would be more efficient at it, if the government didn't take horrendously large amounts of most productive people's pay away. By most accounting, the up-front taxes, AND the hidden taxes, fees, and waste costs from the government that are embedded in goods and services, take ~54 cents of every dollar an average wage earner earns.
Imagine if we had that purchasing power back in our own hands, to do with as we saw fit. AND we were expected to survive by the consequences of that, and bear our own responsibilities, without a huge government safety net.
We might actually be able to afford more, give more charitably, and the wealthier be able to employ more people at better wages.
The problem isn't the cars. It isn't the gasoline. It isn't the automakers, really, although they are not clean in some of the matter.
The problem is the government, and how much it takes and takes, and takes, and spends foolishly, and wastes outright, then over-regulates on top of that.
But no one is saying that on the campaign trail. They all have too much to gain by continuing government's current nanny-role, and they make good money on the government's wasteful practices.
Ted Kennedy Is My Chauffer @ Apr 12th 2008 11:43AM
Amen
The Talking Hamburger @ Apr 15th 2008 1:52AM
mk, you conservative tool. Nobody's saying a damn thing about government's failures, probably because McElroy is talking about musclecars and fuel economy.
Stay on topic and leave the Limbaugh on the radio.
mk @ Apr 15th 2008 10:44AM
@Talking moronburger,
Who in your liberal stupor do you think makes the rules about fuel economy, and over regulates the automotive industry, and makes this topic a topic? The GOVERNMENT. Maybe if you could comprehend what I wrote, you would see that this is the heart of the topic.
The whole reason McElroy is talking about this is CAFE regulations, and other government over-reaching into the free market, which puts products in jeopardy, regardless of public demand.
If that over-regulation didn't exist, this topic wouldn't be a problem, and people could buy whatever damn car they want.
If the government had an actual energy policy, not just a tribute to environmentalism, fuel for those cars would be easier, as well.
It is called FREEDOM, you ignorant moron. And you are exactly why the government thinks that it knows better than the people. In your case, they are right, because you are even stupider than they are. The term "useful idiot" comes to mind. Useful to the socialist nanny-state that I oppose with every breath.
Get a clue and read the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution again. You might learn something. You've got nowhere to go but UP.
MajorGeek @ Apr 11th 2008 6:34PM
@Autoblog, anyway you can find out how production is coming along? It seems to be a mystery, someone must know! May-June arrival is still "the word".
ed @ Apr 11th 2008 6:37PM
Kinda odd to hear this . To me muscle car = fast.
As long as that doesn't change, it doesn't matter what piston count is under the hood. Funny, how we Americans enjoy piss poor engineering. That trademark "harley sound" is an unbalanced crank shaft. We make crap and proud of it! That V8 rumble? Yeah, high quality engineering. In the days of old, the only way american car companies could get more power was by making bigger engines. Some people went to college and learn to make things more efficient. How much power is that mustang 4.6 v8 putting? 300HP? little less then the 2.5 in the sti. The world recognizes results, not effort.
Shipey @ Apr 11th 2008 6:50PM
"That trademark "harley sound" is an unbalanced crank shaft. We make crap and proud of it! That V8 rumble? Yeah, high quality engineering."
Oh man... My head hurts just thinking about how wrong this statement is.
That sound has absolutely nothing to do with "engineering" and everything to to with piston count, cam timing/lobe separation, firing order, etc. etc.
Get a clue.
Za @ Apr 11th 2008 6:55PM
So true. Also, it seems that people only remember the top-of-the-line engines from yesteryear and not the 4s and 6s that were sold in most of the "muscle" cars ever produced. The most powerful ones were the minority. And engines like GM's blown Ecotec used in the Solstice GXP are small-displacement engines with significantly more pop than the 4s, 6s, or most 8s from the 60s/70s.
Hell, the 4s would probably result in better weight balance and handling as well.
Robert Goldman @ Apr 11th 2008 7:21PM
I've got a Mustang GT and an STi. Very different machines, but each with it's own merits. I think a term like "Muscle Car" has a specific meaning. To me a Muscle Car by definition is V8 powered regardless of ultimate performance numbers. Muscle Car spelled with capital letters means a specific type of machine. You might build the same car with an even more powerful V6 engine, but without a V8, it's no longer a Muscle Car. Now it's a Performance Car, or Sports Car, or whatever else you care to call it.
Judy Zik @ Apr 11th 2008 8:25PM
Za +1
People have selective memories. Out of the 198,239 1970 Mustangs sold only 499 had the Boss 429 engine with 375hp which is exactly what the new Hyundai Genesis is expected to have and hardly competitive to the top of the line Mustang of today. Not to mention it handled like an elephant on rollerskates compared to any modern vehicle and had plenty of creeks and squeaks. It would also need to spend quite a bit of time in your garage being "tuned" (as in maintainence levels we wouldn't put up with today). Not to mention how quickly they turned into Rustangs.
The reality is we are living in the Muscle car glory days. A modern family sedan has more horsepower than most of the Muscle cars ever sold did and handles way better. Our sports cars leave them in the dust. So why not enjoy them.
Mike @ Apr 12th 2008 12:49AM
ed,
Crankshafts in all engines are either balanced internally or externally via a crank balancer/flywheel, if they were not, they would crack and fail. The trademark Harley sound or V8 rumble come from the number of cylinders and the camshaft design (as pointed out by Shipey).
Oh, and while a 4.6L Mustang puts out 5 less hp than a 2.5L STI, it provides 30 more lb-ft of torque....and gets the same fuel economy. So I'm not sure what you mean by piss-poor engineering but the fact of the matter is that complexity for complexity's sake isn't always better, it's just different.
rodan32 @ Apr 11th 2008 6:57PM
@ed - One can appreciate different approaches to speed. The new GT-R doesn't make me love the 911 less; neither did my old 320i make me love my '65 Coronet less. One loves an STi because it's a hot Subaru, while one loves a muscle car because it's a muscle car.
To your other point, I can love a Honda 4-cylinder bike and still love a big twin.
As for technology vs. size, same issue, and don't be ignorant. Take the 327 ci Chevy motors in the 60s as a good example of American engineering. Not the biggest, but man, they packed a lot of heat. (Chrysler's 426 is gigantic, but also an engineering masterpiece).
PJ @ Apr 11th 2008 7:04PM
The P-47 analogy is original and apt. But the P-51? Ford's Mustang has more in common with the F6F Hellcat. A safe, unadventurous update of a proven design using traditional technology.
To stretch the WW2 aviation analogy to the breaking point, call the Camaro a P-80A: faster than the others, technically more advanced, but introduced too late to see action.