LS WON

I read that Dodge will be putting in a supercharger to get this much more horsepower to keep up.
Have to keep up with the competition.

Dave68

That + go on a diet......

LS WON

4,160 lbs. is alot but I test drove the 2012 SRT Challenger and it does move and drives fine in the rain. Comfortable and quiet.
The 2 position dampening suspension works as you can feel the difference in between both modes and softens up from the crappy roads we have.

68ragtop69

It's about time they give that car some horsepower!!!

A supercharger can be a great addition to a 4000+lb car!! Just saying!!

Wulverine

A supercharger will just add more weight and cost.

Mopar Jimmy

Yes, but you would be surprised how quick these behmoths are with that HEMI power!! My 2008 SRT8 with just a few bolt ons and a predator tune, runs 12.7s/12.8s, as fast as a 5.0 Mustang GT that weighs almost 500 lbs less, and almost a full second faster (in the /4 mile) than a stock C5 Vette that weight a whopping 800 lbs less!!.

Gotta love modern technology and the current horsepower Wars!

I have not heard about a Supercharged Challenger making 570 HP, that will be a BLAST and very fast for a 4200 lb car!!! Can anyone confirm this by putting up a link regarding same, and what year we talking about 2013 or 2014?

Drug Delivery

While these cars are heavy it's not unusual for a full size sedan to top 4000 lbs. Most mid-size sedans weigh in the range of 3300-3700 lbs, so adding more length, width, and possibly height along with a larger engine shouldn't come as a surprise to hit 4000+lbs. It doesn't help when the car is carrying a 6+L engine that's not small like the Chevy small block.

Even the new M5 with it's smallish V8 (4.4L) weighs in around 4200 lbs. I doubt many will complain about that.

If they tried they could find a way to lose some excess weight to compensate for the supercharger. But with the added weight of the supercharger, and a strong bias in weight already to the front, they may need stiffer springs in the front, thus this car may offer a very stiff ride along with a lot more understeer than it presently has.

LS WON

Shed the uncessary pounds and put it on a diet.
Might avoid the gas guzzler tax like the Corvette has.
One advantage Corvette always had against it competitors is a lighter weight with a powerful engine. (with the exception of the AC Cobra which was even lighter).
Does the heavy weight have any advantage in a car?

No more performance vehicles that compromise a comfortable ride on these beat up public roads for more performance. We need vehicles that can isolate the shock and improve control. Don't need a stiffer ride at the expense of more performance.
Mustang still has that suspension that jumps up when you hit a bump in the road. But perhaps it is a durable inexpensive suspension still in use to keep costs down. Solid rear axle better for drag racing?

LS WON

Does this heavier weight in a car contribute to a more comfortable ride?
Cadillac V models didn't lighten up.

Dave68

The CTS started out as a luxury car, not a muscle car.

LS WON

6 cylinders.

68ragtop69

The CTS already had a great ride, although I think the V's drive a little better than the standard CTS (at least in the Gen II CTS cars). I never compared the weight of a CTS sedan to a CTS-V sedan; I'm not sure how much difference in weight there is between the two models...I just enjoyed my bone-stock 1/4 mile time with the car!! (12.33 @ 118MPH)

LS WON

I had a rental older CTS for a week a few years ago. Ride was fine power was so so. The suspension is definitely smoother than a fox body Must. GT. 5.0.
I wouldn't have to see chiropractor as much.

Dave68

That 502 in your C3 must weigh a bit.....

tjZ06

When did stock C5s start running high 13s? Looks like a '01 'vert (so even heavier) went 12.7s all stock on street tires to me: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/perf...uick-list.html

-TJ

Shark Racer

When you're comparing in favor of a slower car, you always compare the best times of that car vs the worst times of a faster car.

Mopar Jimmy

Its common knowledge that the VAST majority of stock C5s run mid to high 13s all day long (both manual and auto trannys you can look it up on auto reviews all over google, etc).

There will always be exceptions to the rule but this is where 99% of them ran. On average, a stock C5 Z ran bone stock 12.4s to 12.7s.

tjZ06

You saying so makes it common knowledge? You're using auto magazine review times to compare to your track times? That makes a whole heaping lot of sense. Go buddy!

Stock non-Z06 C5s run high 12s to low 13s at a track on stock tires with anything other than a complete idiot driving them. Heck, stock LS1 4th Gen Fbodies run in that same range.

The VAST majority of decade old LS1 Corvettes will run right with your NOT STOCK hemi!

-TJ

Mopar Jimmy

I have drag raced the 4 C5s I have owned in the past quite a bit, 2 auto trannys and 2 C5 Zs, in both stock and moddified configurations, and have been to many drag race outings with many other C5s, when the LS1 whas the cats azz, back in the late 90s and early 2000.

However, more importantly, I have been studying 1/4 miles A LOT the last 11 years since being a member here, your wrong, but that's ok, we are both entitled to our opinions, and I am not going to waste anymore time trying to convince you that the vast majority of bone stock C5s run in the 13.2 to 13.80 range, and C5 Zs with a good driver run low to mid 12s.

You get the last word in bro I'm done debating the 1/4 mile times of a bone stock C5, and you know what they say about opinions?

RedZ4me

so it will be 4350 lbs and 570 hp.......yeah, chryco, go !!! POS ! Worst car company in the world.....on a quiet night you can hear a chryco depreciate.