06 S/C vs 300c SRT-8
01-25-2007, 09:58 PM
#251
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-09-06
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Charger
Wheelbase [in] 120.0
Overall Length [in] 200.1
Ground Clearance 5.1
Track - Front [in] 63.0
Track - Rear [in] 63.1
Overall Width [in] 74.5
Original Charger
And "every inch a Coronet" also meant that the Charger was pretty big. At 203.6 inches long it was a full 22 inches longer than a '66 Mustang and 3.5 inches longer than the four-door 2K6 Charger. The first Charger's 117-inch wheelbase was relatively long for the era in which it was designed, though it seems modest by 21st-century standards when engineers try to shove the wheels out to a car's corners (the 2K6 Charger's wheelbase is 120 inches).
New Mustang
GT-500
Wheelbase:107.1 in.
Height:54.5 in. (Coupe) / 55.7 (Convertible)
Length:187.6 in.
Width:73.9 in.
Weight:approx. 3,920 lbs. (Coupe)
Old Mustang
Overall Length..181.6".
Overall Width.. 68.2
Overall Height..51.1
Wheelbase..108.0
FIRST MUSCLE CAR
OG. GTO
Length (in) Width (in) Height (in) Wheelbase (in) TrackF (in) TrackR (in)
See now????
203.0.......... 73.3...........53.5............ 115.0............. 58.0............58.0
Wheelbase [in] 120.0
Overall Length [in] 200.1
Ground Clearance 5.1
Track - Front [in] 63.0
Track - Rear [in] 63.1
Overall Width [in] 74.5
Original Charger
And "every inch a Coronet" also meant that the Charger was pretty big. At 203.6 inches long it was a full 22 inches longer than a '66 Mustang and 3.5 inches longer than the four-door 2K6 Charger. The first Charger's 117-inch wheelbase was relatively long for the era in which it was designed, though it seems modest by 21st-century standards when engineers try to shove the wheels out to a car's corners (the 2K6 Charger's wheelbase is 120 inches).
New Mustang
GT-500
Wheelbase:107.1 in.
Height:54.5 in. (Coupe) / 55.7 (Convertible)
Length:187.6 in.
Width:73.9 in.
Weight:approx. 3,920 lbs. (Coupe)
Old Mustang
Overall Length..181.6".
Overall Width.. 68.2
Overall Height..51.1
Wheelbase..108.0
FIRST MUSCLE CAR
OG. GTO
Length (in) Width (in) Height (in) Wheelbase (in) TrackF (in) TrackR (in)
See now????
203.0.......... 73.3...........53.5............ 115.0............. 58.0............58.0
price $3 164
engine Hemi V8
valvetrain Shaft-Mounted Rocker OHV
displacement 6981 cc / 426.0 cu in
bore 108 mm / 4.25 in
stroke 95.3 mm / 3.75 in
compression 10.25:1
power 316.9 kw / 425.0 bhp @ 5000 rpm
hp per litre 60.88 bhp per litre
bhp/weight
torque 664.35 nm / 490.0 ft lbs @ 4000 rpm
redline 5500
drive wheels Front Engine / RWD
body / frame Unit Steel
front brakes Opt Front Discs / Rear Drums
front wheels F 38.1 x 17.8 cm / 15.0 x 7.0 in
rear wheels R 38.1 x 17.8 cm / 15.0 x 7.0 in
weight 1642 kg / 3620 lbs
wheelbase 2743 mm / 108.0 in
front track 1461 mm / 57.5 in
rear track 1557 mm / 61.3 in
length 4740 mm / 186.6 in
width 1902 mm / 74.9 in
height 1293 mm / 50.9 in
transmission 4-Speed Manual
gear ratios 2.44:1, 1.77:1, 1.34:1, 1.00:1
final drive 3.54:1
top speed 188.3 kph / 117.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 6.4 seconds
0 - 100 mph 13.0 seconds
0 - 1/4 mile 13.1 seconds
epa city/hwy 7 / 11 mpg
do you not think a hemi cuda is a muscle car?
01-26-2007, 06:31 AM
#252
Member
Join Date: 07-23-06
Location: VA
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the new charger looks like every other GM sedan on the road.
01-26-2007, 11:22 AM
#253
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-05
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What in the hell are you guys talking about and why?
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
01-26-2007, 11:26 AM
#254
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What in the hell are you guys talking about and why?
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
What in the hell are you guys talking about and why?
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
Who cares what classification certian cars fit in, especially when the classifications are opinionated. Truthfully traditional 60's-70's muscle cars were anything but muscle. With the exception of a few monsters most were underpowered tugboats that could easily be passed by a 2006 Civic Si nowdays.
By any standards todays GTO, GT500 and GT handle better and will out perform there predecesors. SO calling them muscles cars doesn't really fit.
Last edited by chevysalesman614; 01-26-2007 at 11:26 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
01-26-2007, 11:35 AM
#256
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-26-2007, 11:42 AM
#257
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-13-05
Location: WI
Posts: 3,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-26-2007, 11:54 AM
#258
Banned
Join Date: 01-26-07
Location: K.C.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-26-2007, 11:57 AM
#259
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-26-2007, 12:11 PM
#260
Banned
Join Date: 01-26-07
Location: K.C.
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GRRRRRRRr
01-26-2007, 06:35 PM
#262
Banned
Join Date: 05-12-05
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 2,698
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they couldn't deal with the fact that my SS/SC Stage 2 could walk there slow ass 99-04 GT's. They dream that every 99-04 GT runs 13s not low to mid 14's, I also had a 2003 GT so I know first hand they don't run 13's or have any top end pull what so ever.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post