Why did no one bother to compare the back seats? The Mustang rear seat could be considered a birth control device. I would hate to ever have to ask anyone to sit back there... The Charger on the other hand carry's 4 large adults all day long in comfort. The rental Mustang I had (here comes the rental car again) did not have enough room for my 3 year old daughter to sit behind me while I drove. Why did they even bother to put a back seat in a Mustang?

 

[sm=deadhorse.gif] in this case the dead horse is a Mustang

 

Nobody has mentioned that even the V6 Mustang insurance (for me anyway) would be about $1200/year, while the Charger V6 is $960 - that may not sound big, but it adds up. I had a 2005 GT and it was over $1300/year.

The Mustang lists for a lot less $20,000 vs. $22,700 but automatic costs an extra $1000 in the Mustang and is standard on Charger.
Both have power accessories standard, though the Charger is definitely "more car."
In the styling department, the Mustang looks 10x better.
In the engineering department, the Charger has the Mercedes platform with independent rear suspension and a softer ride vs. the rather crude but effective Mustang chassis.
I had the GT, but I'm betting the base Mustang will basically run rings around the V6 Charger in handling.
Charger has slightly more horsepower/lb (250/4000=16, 210/3500lbs=16.67), but has "highway" 2.87:1 gearing vs 3.31:1 for the Mustang, so I'm sure the Mustang would have more off the line punch.

I just bought an SE Charger and have both a lower payment and lower insurance compared to the GT, and mine listed for nearly $24G with the power chair and pedal package. 1.5 year old GT really held its value well. To us mortals, $100+/month is substantial. I'm also hoping the SE's 19/29mpg rating will pay off compared to the GT's 17/25mpg. I was getting about 13 or 14mpg in real life, and I'm hoping the 3.5L will have actual mileage of about 18mpg.

In NW Chicago, Chargers are actually much more common even than the V6 Mustang, though I think you should buy what you like no matter what others do.
It's notably harder parking the Charger - this is basically an old school full size car in wheelbase.
These two are really not in the same class, though they are both ostensibly marketed as retro supercars.

Having owned both cars, I can say that the Charger is much more boring, but a much more relaxing, quiet car to drive. It comes down to what you want. If it's a big sedan with some "edge" to it, then the Charger. If it's a pseudo "sports car" with loads of sex appeal and flair, go with the Mustang.

 

i also had a rental charger, and i rent and test drive ALOT of cars, seeing as how i do new car reviews, and nothing that sidewayz said is untrue.

whether he has a mustang and GTO, or a handful of vipers, his comments werent unfounded. i have also had a rental charger, and it was a pig, but i didnt expect it to be fast. i would have liked, however, if it would have been comfortable. the seats were uncomfortable about an hour into my 5 hour drive, and i didnt like the fact that there was no where to rest my left arm (with which i drive). in my stratus, i can rest my arm on the window sill, or the door mounted arm rest, but in the charger, neither was comfortable.

as for the back seat, i was only back there for a bit, and i was facing down most of the time...so i didnt pay much attention to the comfort level...



a 1985 saleen mustang is a pig..i would hope that a new charger would beat it...and why do you keep saying "daytona"? its 5 hp...RT would do. of the 128 saleen mustangs built in 1985, they were nothing but suspension and appearance packages, so in a straight line, its only good for high 14 seconds...saleen didnt start building the motors up until the late 80s 90s with the SSC.

im not sure what you mean here, as the stock srt8s (bone stock) are good for mid to low 13s...where as the M6 LS1 GTOs are high 13s, but your comparing a high end car to a mid level car...put the LS2 GTO in there, which sidewayz has, and the race with a bone stock srt-8 is over quickly, since his automatic GTO runs 12.80s...ive seen an srt-8 run that, but not stock.
2006 charger srt-8 msrp-35,320
2006 ls2 gto msrp-31900

3,400 more for the slower srt-8?


on an engine dyno, with no load, people have gotten over 450 horsepower out of the 6.1L, but even going by the listed hp of 425, (which we all know is under rated) you need 75 horsepower out of a daytona to equal the listed horsepower. other than nitrous, what 1500 in mods are getting you 75 horsepower?

 

In all fairness to the Ford boys and as a clarification my Saleen was not stock. Comp cam, Holly double pumper, High rise manifold and gears, but at best it was only 325 HP.

Secondly Car and Driver (not I ) compares a GTO to a SRT-8 and chose the now to be discontinued aussie because it was more bang for the buck however a more equal comparison of a equally priced Daytona and Mustang GT would be more appropriate. IF it such a great car how come no one will buy it. Also being a part of the collision industry I can tell you that getting parts for this vehicle is a month long nightmare. On a up note I would love to see the El Camino from the same plant reintroduced ( my first real car was a pro-street Elky).

For the Ford side of my past I happen to love '69 Mach I's so the new Mustangs styling gets a thumbs up but being a father of 2 the Mustang is of no use. A comparison between Rousch and SRT would be worth writting about and maybe a good lead for you.

As far as mods to meet a SRT HP are a ducted cold air intake, srt-8 injectors, Superchips reflash on top of a stage 2 Jet chip (ran well at less than 85 degrees but it is denotating now because of 105 degree heat here in AZ but I am hoping that fattening up the mixture more or some 102 octane boost will cure it), and of course a free flow Flow master exhaust.

I ran against a SRT-8 300C and it was a dead heat and he had an exhaust upgrade. This was an over and over attempt and not a kid at a red light. I am not sure how the weights compare but it was definately a fun and earned a thumbs up from both of us. From a credibility stand point I have written published vehicle reviews and I have been building Magazine vehicles for over a decade and my main goal has always been to get the biggest bang for the buck to show up the rich guys. But now I could eat my words because the 6.1 2007 Super Bee has me drooling for more!

Now that I can finally afford a turn key muscle car I got a great car with my Daytona and in comparison to 30 other cars I have owned I haven't had to do much with it to really enjoy it. However if there is a tweek to be had that will fly under a manufactures radar I'll give it a try. Besides if I can take a bus and turn it into a bar for the Discovery Channel who am I to take a "no way" attitude for an anwser.

Hopefully someone out there will have the kahonas to try Comp Cam's 61 Hp gain cam on a Charger. From what most think it only works on non-4 cylinder shut down engine trucks. Given my experience with small block Chevy's I'd hope that it was not the case and according to the manufacture it only requires a programer to work. Fact Hot Rod Magazine had a dyno test with this cam kit and with a after market Mustang MSD ignition computer system (used to get a 6300 RPM redline) a crate 5.7 Hemi put out 481 HP with no other internal mods...

Can it be done... HELL YES! This is not the failed Mopar of the 90's this is the begining of a new era.

 

as much as i hate to argue with someone who is so traveled, i find it very hard to believe that those simple mods, especially the Jet chip...ive dealt with Jet products in a ram, and in a stratus, and they did literally nothing. i suppose that fattening up the mixture on the 5.7 and a good tune would make a difference, but to run heads up with an srt8 product...i would really have to see it with my own eyes...

do you plan on getting the charger to the track this season?

as for SRT versus the roush stage 3, im not mustang fan, but i think that i would have to give that one to the roush, for a few reasons...the 06 GT is tipping the scales at/around 3373-3425...there seems to be contrasting views on that...but even if you take the high end, say 3500lbs...compared to the 4100 of the charger. in crude track math, thats already a 6 tenths disadvantage with all other specs even. (which i know that they arent) while the roush is only 415/385...it has a manual trans, which will yield a greater percentage of gross to wheel horsepower, whereas the srt8 will burn more through the slushbox. granted, the srt8s are under-rated, but i cannot prove nor deny that the roush may also be posting short power numbers...but if you take them at published value...415 in the roush s3 compared to the 425 of the srt8..and by the time those numbers hit the ground, they will be equal due to the trans differences. also the srt8 has a 3.06 gearing, where the mustang GT is 3.11...i cannot find any documentation to state that the roush has a different gearing....so the mustang would have an advantage off the line due to that as well...

 

Well, just to stir the pot a little more, given those HP numbers, the SRT makes more torque. If used right, that could, with a good driver, help equal out the gearing problems for the SRT over the Rousch at launch. So, the launch could be quite even. The additional torque could help over the distance, too, until the higher (assumed) HP of the SRT can be put down.

I would not now hesitate to put my modded R/T up against a stock SRT. I know a guy in town who has an SRT, and one of the days we will do it. Shoot, if I could stay within a door's length (and I think I can), I would be tickled pink.

dave

 

dont get me wrong...im not trying to talk up the roush, or talk down the srt's, or the RTs, but im just saying that on a stock basis, a mustang based car with equal to slightly less power, and a manual trans should be able to beat the heavier, slightly more powerful, and under geared LX car.

ive not driven a modded 5.7 hemi car, but i have driven a stock srt-8 300c on a closed circuit, and i was very impressed, and the stock 5.7 mag that i drove really felt nothing like the srt8 300...but i dont doubt that you can mod the 5.7 to equal to 6.1...its just that the simple mods listed dont seem like enough, imo, to equal the 6.1..

 

I understand what you're saying. I had good luck with the JET Stage 2 chip in my R/T, especially after putting the exhaust on (I already had the CAI on it). And I would agree that a stock GT Mustang with a standard transmission should take a stock R/T. However, the "published" times for these cars are so close, that the driver could make all the difference (Not me, though. I just like to have fun ). All I can tell ya is that, in my altitude, my R/T is very strong. Even the Mustang guys tell me that. Now, it could be that in better air, i.e., moiste, "heavy" air, that the differences are different. What I mean is that perhaps the mods I've put on mine, at this particular altitude, just allow my engine to breathe a certain percentage better between a modded and unmodded motor at lower altitudes. (Does any of this make sense?). What I'm trying to say is that perhaps, at my altitude and thin air, the engine is now able to take in and expell a larger percentage increase in volume, than the same mods would allow at a lower altitude. Perhaps at a lower altitude, there just isn't that much difference in the breathing characteristics between a modded and an unmodded motor. OK? Alright, I'm probably all wet with this, but just a thought.

dave

 

according to a few sites the elevation of your listed home town is around 5354 ft...here are my thoughts, and frankly, they might be completely wrong...at that elevation, the air is "thinner" so by volume it has less oxygen per unit of air. i dont know the exact amounts, but say that your car is sitting at sea level, drawing in 800cfm, there is a given amount of actual oxygen entering the engine, but at 5300 feet above sea level, that amount would be significantly less. since oxygen is the key ingredient in the combustion process, 2 cars tuned the exact same way would show a big difference in how much power is produced. so, a stock engine is somewhat starved for oxygen at higher elevation, where the same car at sea level is probably at, or above the levels of oxygen needed for "ideal" combustion.

so anything that you could do to help get more air, thus more oxygen into the engine, at higher elevations, plus a tune to adjust for the thin air would make more of a difference, but that would go for any car...

well, not my stratus..its slow everywhere...

i had not originally considered the elevation...i have seen an 11 second saleen from denver running in pittsburgh, and it was running awful...i spoke to the guy, and he had intentionally not had the car re-tuned because he wanted to see if it actually made a difference...the car didnt even sound right.



but this is an awesome picture...