Can anyone justify why the new Challengers are 4400 pounds?

[hpe600rt]

i can se that but i would rather have it then a crushed head if something did happen

[ViperMan]

That's my point - that's one of the (many) reasons why the Challenger - and so many other newer cars - are so heavy.  Plus, it's mandated by - you guessed it - the Federal Government health and safety board.

In fact, as I write this, I kinda have to chuckle at the spectrum of comments I've posted on today.  Everyone blames the Government for fuel prices when it's big-business behind the wheel, and then they blame big-business (in the example of blaming Chrysler for heavy, expensive cars) when it's the Government behind the wheel!!

What a viscious, uneducated circle... 

[ragtopdodge]

Bugatti Veyron weight:  4162 lb

Just sayin'.

I'd rather have a car that weighs a bit more, but will save my hide if I get into a crash.  Plus I like sound insulation.  I hate wind and tire noise.

[Gumby]

my 67 Coronet weighs 3600 lbs. Big block disk brakes. Power steering, no a/c. Weighed it on a grain elevator scale.

[tommyg29]

was at the dentist today and read this blurb in Motor Trend while I was waiting:

http://www.motortrend.com/future/future_vehicles/1204_chrysler_looks_to_the_cuda_to_replace_the_dodge_challenger/

It caught my eye cause it looks like my car, but...much of the point is/was that they know they need to bring the new barracuda in (if they make one) much lighter, especially to compete with the upcoming 2015 mustang and camaro.

[TinCuda]

Bugatti Veyron weight:  4162 lb

Just sayin'.

I'd rather have a car that weighs a bit more, but will save my hide if I get into a crash.  Plus I like sound insulation.  I hate wind and tire noise.

   Amen brother


.,

[Cooter]

I believe you sign somewhere around 1985...  Come on Cooter - I know you're a bright man, but you're in the wrong century, bud.  Hell a 426 Hemi ALONE costs what, $16,000 these days?

Even the high-powered Mustangs cost over $40,000.  Sorry man, but the days of Disco are Dead.

Nope....It's thinking like this that caused these damn Challengers to sell for three and four times the MSRP when they came out...Just cause YOU wanna take one up the ass and smile, doesn't mean I WANT TO..
These cars cost around $20K to produce. I refuse to pay some middle man over $20K just because he got it from the manufacturer cheaper and "Needs to make payments on that summer home in Aspen".

I ask you guys this....What was the definition of a MUSCLECAR? Cheap, plain brown wrapper, with the biggest engine available. Most HP for your buck. Cheap thrills. Aimed at the Younger Gen. without alot of money. When did it become a rich man's toy? When did they become heavy, gas guzzling POS with NAV systems and A/C for goodness sake? A MUSCLE CAR with NAV System? REALLY?? I tell you when....When people began to bend over and refused to stand up and scream NO! Give us what we want... lightweight, safe, big HP, and payments we can afford.

Mustang GT I can get for just under $36K...Forget that over priced, aimed at folks that wanna take one Mustang Shelby or "Boss:", they are CLEARLY overpriced. The 426 Hemi? CLEARLY overpriced. You gonna try and tell me an engine that cost around $800.00 option when it was produced BRAND NEW saw a $16K price increase over 30 years? Yeah, tell me another one cause that  one's gettin' cold. Again, it's "I'll take one at no matter the cost" thinking like your post that causes this. Don't shoot the messenger because if this is the 2012, I'll stay in 1985...It's the same thing as buying a new Challenger one piece at a time..NOBODY does that. Yet, that's how the new 426 Hemi is priced. Well let's see, a set of Rockers will cost you this, a crank this, a set of heads this, a block this, etc..I still call BS...BTW: I still enjoy some Disco.

[Cooter]

That's my point - that's one of the (many) reasons why the Challenger - and so many other newer cars - are so heavy.  Plus, it's mandated by - you guessed it - the Federal Government health and safety board.

In fact, as I write this, I kinda have to chuckle at the spectrum of comments I've posted on today.  Everyone blames the Government for fuel prices when it's big-business behind the wheel, and then they blame big-business (in the example of blaming Chrysler for heavy, expensive cars) when it's the Government behind the wheel!!

What a viscious, uneducated circle... 

Your gonna sit there and say things like "Uneducated" when CLEARLY NOBODY wants to DIE in an unsafe car...Hell, even race cars have MANDATED SAFETY equipment...THAT'S NOT the issue we are saying when we say lighten up the car...Things like power ass scratchers, cup holders, back seats, 75 power ports for cell phones, laptops, A/C, 58 power thingy's that do nothing but sell cars, NAV. systems for people that can't read maps (Talk about "Uneducated")...THIS is why the Challenger is so heavy...Ok since your clearly the smart one and I'm stuck in 1985, tell me why the Mustang GT is kicking Chrysler's ASS when it comes to power to weight, price for power? Tell me why the new Mustang GT has 411 HP and is only 302 C.I. when the new Challenger has 6.1 liters @ 392 C.I. or whatever that SRT is, and only 425 HP? Why doesn't the new Mustang look like someone stuck an air hose up it's tailpipe and let it rip like the Challenger does?

It's cause of "Mercedes" type thinking that did it. Based off of a LUXURY car platform instead of what it SHOULD have been, a PONY CAR...But Alas, Everybody simply bent over and greased up by paying three times what they were worth simply to be the first on the block with a porker of a car. Congrats, hope your ass feels good every time you drive that over priced Mercedes.

[ViperMan]

Lol - why are you blaming ME for all this?

First of all, I haven't purchased a new car in 11 years, and I'll NEVER pay dealer-markup on a car because of "demand."  I LAUGHED at the Chevy salesman the first time I saw a Camaro on a lot with a 5K markup.

Secondly, the Mustang GT is Ford's "entry level" V8.  Now I didn't check the prices on Ford.com, but I can have a Challenger R/T - the entry level V8 from Dodge - for less than 30 grand - less than the GT price you quoted.  So I'm not even sure what your argument (with me) is over that one.

And lastly, Chrysler TOLD us that the Challenger was going to be heavy because it used the same platform as the Charger/Magnum/300.  It was supposedly cheaper to "bloat" the body of the Challenger than to redesign an entirely new chassis.

So all I have left to ask is:  1) Since your sources have apparently informed you that it only costs $20 thousand to manufacture a Challenger and yet they cost $30 thousand, then why did Chrysler have to claim bankruptcy a few years ago and get bailed out by us taxpayers?  And 2) since when did adding "cupholders" increase the weight of a car?!?!

But it's cool man - blame me for whatever you want.  It won't make your lightweight, high-power, low-cost muscle car a reality or those bell-bottoms of yours fashionable. 

[ChallengerHK]

Secondly, the Mustang GT is Ford's "entry level" V8.  Now I didn't check the prices on Ford.com, but I can have a Challenger R/T - the entry level V8 from Dodge - for less than 30 grand - less than the GT price you quoted.  So I'm not even sure what your argument (with me) is over that one.

When I was at GM an engineer told me that the company was making an average of $9000 on every Suburban sold. At Ford, an engineer told me that they were clearing $10000 on every Expedition. Both of them told me that these were unheard of numbers, which is why they were trying to keep these vehicles in production even after the profits fell; they were hoping that the profit drop was temporary. Remember, these were high ticket vehicles at the time.

At the same period, the Big 3 was losing $300 on every compact car; these were offered only to make the CAFE numbers. The Asian manufacturers were making money on their compacts.

Given those numbers, it's hard for me to believe a $10000 profit on a $30000 Challenger. Not impossible, but I'd be willing to bet it's around $3000.

[bad440]

One other thing, the latest SRT has 470 HP, not 425, and can run low twelves with all that pork. Stay tuned for the 2013's, the SRT will have a supercharged 6.2 Hemi putting out 550 plus HP.Should also check out the mileage they are getting with these engines, you might be surprised.

[Cooter]

Lol - why are you blaming ME for all this?You came in and quoted me pal. I don't bat the hornet's nest and expect not to get stung, you shouldn't either.

First of all, I haven't purchased a new car in 11 years, and I'll NEVER pay dealer-markup on a car because of "demand."  I LAUGHED at the Chevy salesman the first time I saw a Camaro on a lot with a 5K markup.

Secondly, the Mustang GT is Ford's "entry level" V8.  Now I didn't check the prices on Ford.com, but I can have a Challenger R/T - the entry level V8 from Dodge - for less than 30 grand - less than the GT price you quoted.  So I'm not even sure what your argument (with me) is over that one.

And lastly, Chrysler TOLD us that the Challenger was going to be heavy because it used the same platform as the Charger/Magnum/300.  It was supposedly cheaper to "bloat" the body of the Challenger than to redesign an entirely new chassis. Ok, your point? This thread asked WHY it was so heavy, I answered. All this statement proves if true, is that there were people out there that bought these things knowing they were pigs, then want to complain about how heavy they are after the fact.

So all I have left to ask is:  1) Since your sources have apparently informed you that it only costs $20 thousand to manufacture a Challenger and yet they cost $30 thousand, then why did Chrysler have to claim bankruptcy a few years ago and get bailed out by us taxpayers?  And 2) since when did adding "cupholders" increase the weight of a car?!?!First of all, I can't believe your gonna sit there and ask such a question.. We all know why companies go bankrupt. It's because of corperate GREED and has nothing to do with selling high. You could make $40K on every new car sold and some top exec. at Chrysler would find a way to spend into debt. More money equals more spending. Where have you been lately with the current Presidential Admin. Now who's stuck in the 80's?

But it's cool man - blame me for whatever you want. Not blaming you for anything, just replying to you trying to make it look like there's no way to make the new cars affordable. There's a way, But as long as there's someone standing in line that just can't wait to take one up the Wazoo because he/she thinks they'll be the first on the block with one, no matter what the cost, people like me have NO buying power. It won't make your lightweight, high-power, low-cost muscle car a reality or those bell-bottoms of yours fashionable. 
 AGAIN with thinking like this, it's no wonder. Some will agree with me some won't, but I can tell you this.... I refuse to pay for what "Detroit" is putting out today for a musclecar. Too much $$$ for way too little perforamnce. Therefore, I'll keep my 750 HP, Lightweight, SAFE(Caged), CHEAP(UNDER $12K DONE), 1968 dodge. The way Musclecars were meant to be. You go right ahead there skippy and drink the cool-aid, I'll stay on the outside and watch. I think it's painfully obvious talking(Arguing?) to you about this is a futile attempt at best. Have a nice day!

[tommyg29]

as heavy as todays cars are, performance wise they blow away yesterdays cars. They are much safer, more efficient and FAR more comfortable (if thats important to you). No one can argue those facts. And they are still relatively affordable at $30-35k, just like cars at $4000 were 40 years ago.
I think the Challenger looks bloated, and at 4400 pounds it actually is, but in the end the average buyer that butters Dodges bread doesnt care about the weight.
If you want what you consider to be a true muscle car, build it yourself. Easy enough to buy a 4 year old challenger for a LOT less than $30k, and upgrade it any way you want, just as many of us have done with e-bodys.

I am definitely not a purist. If the srt division comes out with an alfa romeo designed cuda in a few years, and I think its cool, I'll definitely be interested. May not be able to afford one though. Like I mentioned in another thread, a rwd 600hp 3500lb car with two doors and a couple jump seats in back, at anything less than $50-55k (unlikely) would instantly become a classic modern muscle car. And if I cant afford it, thats my problem, not Chryslers. A car like that would probably be so superior to anything my 71 cuda ever was that it shouldnt be expected that almost everyone can afford one. For everyone else they will sell the 300hp dart!

[1970 RT Challenger 1970]

When I buy a new Challenger, I reckon I'm gonna take my Hole Saw, and lighten it up like the aircraft and make swiss cheese out of it with all those holes!

Should be able to lighten it up and get it down to 2000 lbs or less. It's just like the Jenny Craig Diet! 

[ragtopdodge]

The Challenger was made to fill a void and had to be done on the cheap.

The Challenger will be a collector's item I feel b/c I don't think it will live beyond 2015.  A new D-class, flexible RWD/AWD platform will be made (kind of like Nissan's FX platform) that will be smaller and lighter.  Hence, the 'Cuda everyone's talking about.

The brass knows the Challenger is a fatty, but couldn't go run out right away and build a new platform back in 2008.

The Camaro, Mustang, and will be all new by 2015 and will be smaller and lighter, which is a GOOD thing!   I'd have no problem if the next pony car would be a supercharged or twin-turbo Pentastar.  As long as it makes at least 400hp and is under $35k.

My daily driver 2003 G35 with a Stillen stage 4 supercharger is the PERFECT size.  Ask anyone who has sat in one.  There's actually a lot of room inside; especially in the back seat.  Plus, if you wanted to, you could transplant an LS motor in it w/o cutting.