CHARGER SRT

[sciguy_0504]

The S4 is one hot car, though, and I think it befits the price tag.

[Rymanrph]

I this argument is very strong: If a SRT-8 is overpriced, then what should a 425hp large sedan cost? There isn't any other car that compares in performance and size for that price period. And after seeing 3 Charger SRT-8s and 2 Magnum SRT-8s in person.... man they're hot cars.

[torobud]

I this argument is very strong:  If a SRT-8 is overpriced, then what should a 425hp large sedan cost?  There isn't any other car that compares in performance and size for that price period.  And after seeing 3 Charger SRT-8s and 2 Magnum SRT-8s in person.... man they're hot cars.

I agree - I am still waiting for one of the haters to come up with a car that offers the balance of everything for the same $$

[Northstar]

Check again and I think  you'll find that the blue trim is soft vinyl, not actual leather.  The top portion of the Charger's door (darker color) down to the armrest are soft-touch plastic....the hard portion is the light color that's BELOW the armrest.  The GTO has hard plastic on the lower portion too (below the blue.)

But we are really picking nits here.....I find the Charger's interior attractive and nicely trimmed out.....not to say the GTO isn't, just that they are different.  MY only beef was with the comments that the Charger's interior is "garbage" or "not befitting it's price" and stuff......

The upper part is softer than the lower part, but I wouldn't want to rest my arm there for an extended period of time. It might be vinyl in the GTO, but the horizontal (to the ground) part is leather I'm pretty sure... feels the same as the stuff on the seats. The only hard part in the GTO is the black part way down below the side bolster of the seat, which you never touch. The other blue part is some sort of fabric that feels fine. The only really hard parts in the GTO are above the center stack and the glove box area.

I do not think the Charger's interior is befitting of a $40k+ vehicle. I realize that it also comes as a $23k vehicle, but you would think Dodge would do something else to make it better from a base version.

[BrewSwillis]

I do not think the Charger's interior is befitting of a $40k+ vehicle. I realize that it also comes as a $23k vehicle, but you would think Dodge would do something else to make it better from a base version.

They did:

[Northstar]

They did:

If all I'm interested in is power, I'll buy the R/T for $32k and give it a few inexpensive upgrades (relatively) such as a camshaft, headers, exhuast, intake, and maybe a couple other goodies and be able to beat an SRT-8.

[regfootball]

At the end of the day, I thought a car's interior did not matter much when it came to performance?

so it is true then, chryslers have cheap interiors?

[regfootball]

I this argument is very strong:  If a SRT-8 is overpriced, then what should a 425hp large sedan cost?  There isn't any other car that compares in performance and size for that price period.  And after seeing 3 Charger SRT-8s and 2 Magnum SRT-8s in person.... man they're hot cars.

i guess if you're buying by the pound, then you get a LOT for your money with the dodge. a lOT as in like 4200+ pounds......or more.....

10 bucks a pound roughly. Although good steak in many cases is cheaper than that even.......although cars do cost more per pound.

[regfootball]

I agree - I am still waiting for one of the haters to come up with a car that offers the balance of everything for the same $$

are we leaving styling out of the equation? not much of that to go on here.......

[sciguy_0504]

so it is true then, chryslers have cheap interiors?

For the most part, yes, DCX does have relatively cheap interiors. I would not call the interiors of the LX cars, minivans, PT Cruiser or Pacifica cheap, though.

My point was that many on here complain about others who hype nice interiors. They focus on performance, exterior design, etc. I am, for the most part, one of those members who likes a nice interior (good materials, build quality and design) but I would gladly look over a non-$42,000 interior because, in my mind, the Charger SRT8 compensates in exterior design, image and performance.

[BrewSwillis]

are we leaving styling out of the equation?  not much of that to go on here.......

No.

Bland?

...or Bold?

[Flybrian]

Styling is a matter of opinion, nullifying that argument either way.

[regfootball]

again, my continuous point is the GTO body was designed for the aero age and when it was conceived up til about 3-4 years ago was quite en vogue.

I realize some like the looks of the charger. I think its chunky and unsophisticated yet not terribly objectionable. I do not think its styling is the right kind of style for a car in the mid forties price range.

[Northstar]

I realize some like the looks of the charger.  I think its chunky and unsophisticated yet not terribly objectionable.  I do not think its styling is the right kind of style for a car in the mid forties price range.

I never looked at the Charger's looks that way, but that's actually a good way to judge it now that I think about it. The SRT-8 is really boy-racerish, and for the price doesn't seemed very refined. If you want in-your-face and racer-like, then it's fine, but if you want something more sophisticated, then you have to go elsewhere (I guess the 300C SRT-8 is somewhat more sophisticated, but still nothing like a CTS-V or BMW).

[regfootball]

I never looked at the Charger's looks that way, but that's actually a good way to judge it now that I think about it. The SRT-8 is really boy-racerish, and for the price doesn't seemed very refined. If you want in-your-face and racer-like, then it's fine, but if you want something more sophisticated, then you have to go elsewhere (I guess the 300C SRT-8 is somewhat more sophisticated, but still nothing like a CTS-V or BMW).

to expand on that, i guess it seems to me that Dodge has kind of assumed the image that all the old cladded pontiacs used to have.

[BrewSwillis]

I never looked at the Charger's looks that way, but that's actually a good way to judge it now that I think about it. The SRT-8 is really boy-racerish, and for the price doesn't seemed very refined. If you want in-your-face and racer-like, then it's fine, but if you want something more sophisticated, then you have to go elsewhere (I guess the 300C SRT-8 is somewhat more sophisticated, but still nothing like a CTS-V or BMW).

.....and by that, you mean not at least $10K more??

I don't know, the CTS-V doesn't look quite $10K more to me:

.....and you can't even get a base 215 HP 5 Series for less than the 425 HP 300C SRT-8!

[pow]

.....and you can't even get a base 215 HP 5 Series for less than the 425 HP 300C SRT-8!

Or an E-class, for that matter. It depends on what your priorities are.

[pow]

...or Bold?

Wow, Charger looks great in SRT-8 form. I like it more than the 300C, though it's such a shame the interior is so trashy.

[Dragon]

...or Bold?

check please *drool*

[Northstar]

.....and by that, you mean not at least $10K more??

I don't know, the CTS-V doesn't look quite $10K more to me:

.....and you can't even get a base 215 HP 5 Series for less than the 425 HP 300C SRT-8!

I meant on the outside, but whatever. That picture isn't correct because you can't get the CTS-V without NAV (Which makes it look better).

A CTS-V is $51,395, unless you want different shock absorbers or run-flats, an SRT-8 is $46,305 if you get everything but performance tires and the rear DVD system, so you're $10k difference is only $5k. I'll take a Cadillac for $51k over a Chrysler for $46k any day of the week. In addition, you're likely to find the SRT-8 marked up while the CTS-V is not going to be marked up at most places.

As for the 5-Series, well, it's a BMW. It's going to be more expensive than most any comparable car. You get what you pay for.

[The O.C.]

I do not think the Charger's interior is befitting of a $40k+ vehicle. I realize that it also comes as a $23k vehicle, but you would think Dodge would do something else to make it better from a base version.

I see your point....and actually it's the major problem I have with the Lucerne.....it's okay for a $26K CX model.....but lacks enough flair for me to consider spending $38K on a CXS.

[Northstar]

I see your point....and actually it's the major problem I have with the Lucerne.....it's okay for a $26K CX model.....but lacks enough flair for me to consider spending $38K on a CXS.

I assume you mean you don't think it is asthetically any better, correct? I agree it could look a little fancier, considering it's pretty similar to the Impala. However, I am happy Buick upgrades the materials when you go from $26k to $38k, whereas Dodge doesn't.

[sciguy_0504]

I assume you mean you don't think it is asthetically any better, correct? I agree it could look a little fancier, considering it's pretty similar to the Impala. However, I am happy Buick upgrades the materials when you go from $26k to $38k, whereas Dodge doesn't.

Upgrade to leather seats?

[Northstar]

Upgrade to leather seats?

No, upgraded materials that you actually touch. I'm not talking about lower dash materials because you aren't touching those while you're driving. I'm talking about nice leather on the door panels (Charger has plastic on all models), leather steering wheel, etc. It's not totally different, but the overall feel between a Lucerne CX and CXS is much greater than that between your $25k Charger and $40+k SRT-8.

[Chazman]

I think the Charger SRT-8 would be so much better looking without that ridiculous rear spoiler. They should at least offer a spoiler delete option.

[ocnblu]

To rationalize the Charger SRT-8, remember that even in the 60's at the height of the musclecar era, Chrysler was always more about the serious mechanical hardware than the fluffy interior software. The base Charger SE is a compelling value with the 250 horse V6, 5 speed automanual transmission, and RWD compared to the Impala as it is now, for instance.

My hat is off to Chrysler for apologizing to NO ONE about their decision to build a real American car we can all be proud of.

[Chazman]

My hat is off to Chrysler for apologizing to NO ONE about their decision to build a real American car we can all be proud of.

I agree. DCX showed lots of balls.

[El Scorcho]

I agree. DCX showed lots of balls.

Ew. Edited March 7, 2006 by El Scorcho

[Intrepidation]

Some of the posts on this thread are pretty funny, particularly with some of the negative comments. Ok, tell me this: SRT stands for Street and Racing Technology, does it say anywhere that that they stand for Fluffy Interiors? No. For the clueless, the Charger SRT-8, like every SRT product, is about performance, and a hell of a lot of it. Their mission is to give you maximum performance for the best value. You show me a car this big with this much power for 44k and I'll show you a Vice President that can tell humans from Quails

FYI according to the the SRT site, the Charger SRT-8 starts at 38k

Anyway, if you're gonna be picky about the interior and think it's too pricy cuz it's not made with baby seal hide or something, go buy a Caliber SRT-4...it's supposed to start under 25k. There are certainly fancier cars for 44k, but none of them come with a fire-breathing 425 horsepowe Hemi, sport tuned suspension, and other performance goodness.

As for looks...well that's always subjective. I wasn't fond of the Charger at first, but seeing them in real life is much more gratifying than pictures. Plus, once I saw a photo of the SRT-8...well that just looks badass. Not everyone likes Dodge's designs, but credit to Dodge for not being afraid to build something that actually creates an opinion, not a collective yawn *coughgtocough*

Permission to start drooling!

Edited March 8, 2006 by Dodgefan

[regfootball]

frickin thing has wider hips than Kathy Bates.

[Intrepidation]

frickin thing has wider hips than Kathy Bates.

So..did you give up on bashing the pricetag and interior and now switched to bashing..the kicback in the rear? Clever.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Dodgefan

[mphmag]

first off: chazman awesome avatar.

second: The srt8 is so badass looking. especially in black but even in silver here, wow.

That said I love the CTS-V. That thing's awesome. It is the ultimate sleeper although I'd love a grill delete option.

But the DCX interiors overall need some help.

[Northstar]

Some of the posts on this thread are pretty funny, particularly with some of the negative comments. Ok, tell me this: SRT stands for Street and Racing Team, does it say anywhere that that they stand for Fluffy Interiors? No. For the clueless, the Charger SRT-8, like every SRT product, is about performance, and a hell of a lot of it. Their mission is to give you maximum performance for the best value. You show me a car this big with this much power for 44k and I'll show you a Vice President that can tell humans from Quails 

FYI according to the the SRT site, the Charger SRT-8 starts at 38k

Actually it's Street and Racing Technology, but thats okay

You aren't going to find anything for the same price and as big, but unless you really need those extra doors and that third seat in the back, the GTO offers you basically the same package for $6k+ less.

Anyway, if you're gonna be picky about the interior and think it's too pricy cuz it's not made with baby seal hide or something, go buy a Caliber SRT-4...it's supposed to start under 25k. There are certainly fancier cars for 44k, but none of them come with a fire-breathing 425 horsepowe Hemi, sport tuned suspension, and other performance goodness.

The GTO offers a 400HP LS2 Corvette engine (which is more easily modified than the Hemi, if you want to argue that the Hemi has 25 more HP) for $32k, and a pretty damn nice interior. Certainly better than the Charger's. If GM, who gets pounded for cheap interiors, can offer a nice interior and the same performance for $6k+ less, why can't Dodge offer a comparable interior when their vehicle costs more?

As for looks...well that's always subjective. I wasn't fond of the Charger at first, but seeing them in real life is much more gratifying than pictures. Plus, once I saw a photo of the SRT-8...well that just looks badass. Not everyone likes Dodge's designs, but credit to Dodge for not being afraid to build something that actually creates an opinion, not a collective yawn *coughgtocough*

Agreed the SRT-8 looks pretty good.

[The O.C.]

I assume you mean you don't think it is asthetically any better, correct? I agree it could look a little fancier, considering it's pretty similar to the Impala. However, I am happy Buick upgrades the materials when you go from $26k to $38k, whereas Dodge doesn't.

Actually they don't upgrade the materials....that's what I don't like.....

Other than seat trim (cloth versus leather) the dash and door panel materials, plastics, woodgrain, and switchgear are all the same from CX to CXS.

[The O.C.]

It's not totally different, but the overall feel between a Lucerne CX and CXS is much greater than that between your $25k Charger and $40+k SRT-8.

I totally disagree......

At least SRT-8 gives you a serious upgrade in seats and seat trim......and a unique leather steering-wheel cover.....

And base Chargers have hard plastic......but in less abundance than what Lucerne offers.

[The O.C.]

If GM, who gets pounded for cheap interiors, can offer a nice interior and the same performance for $6k+ less, why can't Dodge offer a comparable interior when their vehicle costs more?

They do offer a more-than-comparable interior to GTO in regards to quality of materials, seating, switchgear, and fit-and-finish.

[Intrepidation]

Actually it's Street and Racing Technology, but thats okay

oops.

I do agree that the GTO has a nicer interior, at least on looks, though I've never poked around one.

[Northstar]

Actually they don't upgrade the materials....that's what I don't like.....

Other than seat trim (cloth versus leather) the dash and door panel materials, plastics, woodgrain, and switchgear are all the same from CX to CXS.

Hmm, maybe I'll have to re-examine it, but I could have sworn the CXS door panels were way better than the CX models.

They do offer a more-than-comparable interior to GTO in regards to quality of materials, seating, switchgear, and fit-and-finish.

Everything else may be comparable, but materials are not.

[Intrepidation]

Northstar, I agree with that the GTO has a nicer interior overall, at least from the looks; I don't care for the Charger's design, but I don't hate it either. However, from what I've read at least, the Charger outperforms it. I like the GTO, but I like the Charger better, especially where looks come into play (subjective). The Charger is also more practicle as muscle car a family can own and use, which also gives it an edge. The whole arguement of the thread, at least originally was if the Charer SRT-8 is a good deal or not, and to that in I say, "Hell yes!"

BTW I like your avatar Northstar, it's the MXK (Mmm-Kay-X, har har) headlight right?

[Northstar]

It's actually the Camaro's headlight.

For $38k the Charger is a good deal, but when you go into the $44k range, it becomes to close to the CTS-V. That's my take on the topic, even though I stand by what I said about the GTO.

[Intrepidation]

It's actually the Camaro's headlight.

For $38k the Charger is a good deal, but when you go into the $44k range, it becomes to close to the CTS-V. That's my take on the topic, even though I stand by what I said about the GTO.

oh i see it now, my bad, eheh

[CaddyXLR-V]

I love how the Charger looks, but it still wouldn't sway me from picking the GTO over it. But honestly, the 2 dont really compete with each other. The GTO would be more comparable to a hemi charger instead of SRT-8. If GM were to make the Judge, which would probably be around the price range of the SRT-8, that would be a better comparison. I would assume the Judge would have closer to 500hp though, and would compete more fairly in handling.

But I would probably take a regular hemi Charger over the SRT-8 and save alot of money.

[BrewSwillis]

It's actually the Camaro's headlight.

For $38k the Charger is a good deal, but when you go into the $44k range, it becomes to close to the CTS-V. That's my take on the topic, even though I stand by what I said about the GTO.

The CTS-V costs $50,675. No way is $43K considered the same "range". The Charger is also a larger car, and the V doesn't offer an auto tranny. People that spend $40K - $50K on a large vehicle would probably want the option of an auto tranny.......and before you say it....yes, the Charger probably should have had the option for a stick.

However, if you want a 400 HP GM performance vehicle with a stick.....why not buy a Corvette....and save some money?

[Northstar]

The CTS-V costs $50,675.  No way is $43K considered the same "range".  The Charger is also a larger car, and the V doesn't offer an auto tranny.  People that spend $40K - $50K on a large vehicle would probably want the option of an auto tranny.......and before you say it....yes, the Charger probably should have had the option for a stick. 

However, if you want a 400 HP GM performance vehicle with a stick.....why not buy a Corvette....and save some money?

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 2005 CTS-Vs sitting around that you could swing for about $46k, but if you go by MSRP then $7k is a somewhat large margin I guess.

Yes, some people probably want an auto transmission in their large cars, and some people want a manual transmission in their performance cars.

If I wanted the cheapest GM performance vehicle with 400HP and a stick, I'd buy a GTO. Also, I don't think I'd save money on the Vette unless I got a base one without all the features the CTS-V has.

[Intrepidation]

Again, the whole point of this thread is if the Charger SRT-8 is a good buy or not. Short answer is yes, to get a Caddy it's power and size would mean the STS-V which is way more expensive. So yes, it's a great buy.

[regfootball]

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of 2005 CTS-Vs sitting around that you could swing for about $46k, but if you go by MSRP then $7k is a somewhat large margin I guess.

Yes, some people probably want an auto transmission in their large cars, and some people want a manual transmission in their performance cars.

If I wanted the cheapest GM performance vehicle with 400HP and a stick, I'd buy a GTO. Also, I don't think I'd save money on the Vette unless I got a base one without all the features the CTS-V has.

at the end of the 2004 model year, i personally saw a new CTSv with a dealer tag that was marked down at least 5 grand off sticker. Considering the SRT will sell at sticker or a bit of markup, the two essentially compete in the mid forties price range. In that case, its a no brainer....CTSv.

Someone check how much lighter the GTO is than the SRT. The GTO likely has a better hp/lb. ratio. Its cheaper, has a far better interior and is less likely to be confused with Camryn manheim.

Edited March 9, 2006 by regfootball

[Intrepidation]

at the end of the 2004 model year, i personally saw a new CTSv with a dealer tag that was marked down at least 5 grand off sticker.  Considering the SRT will sell at sticker or a bit of markup, the two essentially compete in the mid forties price range.  In that case, its a no brainer....CTSv.

Someone check how much lighter the GTO is than the SRT.  The GTO likely has a better hp/lb. ratio.  Its cheaper, has a far better interior and is less likely to be confused with Camryn manheim.

Actually when Motor Trend compared the GTO VS 300 SRT-8 (which is similar to the Charger SRT-8 ) and the CTS-V, the 300 outperformed the GTO in 0-60 (4.9 vs 5.0 seconds). The CTS is most likely the sporiest of the group, but again the Charger is roomier. As for interiors...the Charger's ain't horrible, and the amount of soft stuff doesn't effect performance, which is what this car is about, so drop it. Jeez. Once again, The topic of the thread is if the Charger SRT-8 is a good value. Considering that it's undiscounted (compared to the CTS), you get a bigger, roomier car, with a lot of mucsle and performance to boot. The GTO is indeed cheaper, but smaller and less practicle, so it can't make as stronmg a case for practicality. That and it looks like a Cavalier on steroids. It's not perfeerect, but to quote that British king of yore "Nothing has any business being perfect". No car is perfect, but it's still a damn good car for a damn good price for what you get.

One other things is that while the 3 cars are similar in price, a more accurate comparison would be with the STS-V...in which case the Charger or any LX car wins hands down as far as value-per-dollar goes. No gripes about the interiors, cuz the Charger is way cheaper and isn't marketed as a luxo car. Thank you and goodnight.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Dodgefan

[torobud]

This thread reminds me of when MotorTrend picked the Acura RSX over the SRT-4 and the Cobalt SS/SC and Ion Redline in a 'Cheap Speed' competition because the interior in the RSX was nice...

[Northstar]

The topic of the thread is if the Charger SRT-8 is a good value.

Is it a good performance value? Yes. But who said you don't factor in the interior when determining whether a vehicle is a good value?

As for 0-60 and whatnot... they're both pretty similar. I think the fastest I've seen the Charger is 4.9 while the GTO got 4.7 in a test between in and the Charger SRT-8 in MT. You aren't going to notice much of a difference between 4.9 and 4.7 though.

[Intrepidation]

This thread reminds me of when MotorTrend picked the Acura RSX over the SRT-4 and the Cobalt SS/SC and Ion Redline in a 'Cheap Speed' competition because the interior in the RSX was nice...  

Yeah, that pissed the crap out of me. I mean...the comapraison to see which car was the best performance car, not the cushiest. The SRT-4 left the other cars in the dust. If it were me I'd have put it SRT-4, Colbalt SS, RSX, and Ion...but what do I know