2012 Dodge Challenger SRT-8 392 Test Drive

various reasons.  A friend of mine who works at a Dodge/Fiat dealer shot me and email basically saying “have you driven a 392 yet?  They’re awesome.”  Considering my limited experience the LX cars in general, and my overall fondness (on paper) for the new 392ci Hemi V8 (6.4L for you continental types), I figured I’d jump on it.  I mean, who would say no to driving a 470 horsepower sports car?
The primary difference between the 2011+ Challenger SRT-8′s and the previous (2008-2010) models is
under the hood.  I’vethe new 6.4L Hemi V8, but here are the basics: more displacement(6.4L vs 6.1L), more power (470bhp vs 425bhp), more torque and a wider torque curve (470lb-ft vs 420lb-ft), and better fuel economy.  Despite weighing 4100+lbs and sporting 470 horsepower with a 3.92 rear axle ratio, the SRT-8 392 is rated at 14/23 by  Which is odd, because the automatic-transmission SRT8 – which features which the 6-speed doesn’t have – is rated at 14/22.

And while8 still doesn’t delivery fuel economy numbers like the5.0 does (18/26), I have to doubt that people plunking down 44k and change (plus options) to get a 470 horsepower slice of rumbling Americana really give half a rat’s ass about fuel economy numbers.  Still, it’s nice that the engine went up in size and power and gained 1mpg on the highway cycle with a manual.

In a recent review of the Mustang GT 5.0, I alluded to it’s desirability over a Dodge Challenger for various reasons.  A friend of mine who works at a Dodge/Fiat dealer shot me and email basically saying “have you driven a 392 yet?  They’re awesome.”  Considering my limited experience the LX cars in general, and my overall fondness (on paper) for the new 392ci Hemi V8 (6.4L for you continental types), I figured I’d jump on it.  I mean, who would say no to driving a 470 horsepower sports car?
The primary difference between the 2011+ Challenger SRT-8′s and the previous (2008-2010) models is under the hood. on the new 6.4L Hemi V8, but here are the basics: more displacement (6.4L vs 6.1L), more power (470bhp vs 425bhp), more torque and a wider torque curve (470lb-ft vs 420lb-ft), and better fuel economy.  Despite weighing 4100+lbs and sporting 470 horsepower with a 3.92 rear axle ratio, the SRT-8 392 is rated at 14/23 by the EPA.  Which is odd, because the automatic-transmission SRT8 – which features MDS (cylinder shutdown), which the 6-speed doesn’t have – is rated at 14/22.

And while the SRT-8 still doesn’t delivery fuel economy numbers like the GT 5.0 does (18/26), I have to doubt that people plunking down 44k and change (plus options) to get a 470 horsepower slice of rumbling Americana really give half a rat’s ass about fuel economy numbers.  Still, it’s nice that the engine went up in size and power and gained 1mpg on the highway cycle with a manual.

But saying that the Challenger SRT8 gets bad fuel economy is about as relevant as saying Heidi Klum struggles to understand biochemistry – who cares?  The power available underneath your right foot is intoxicating.  While the 5.0 in the Mustang likes to rev, and makes most of it’s power higher in the rev range, the 392ci Hemi presents instantaneous thrust, divisible by tiny fractions of an inch, with a flex of your toe.  It’s the kind of power that strains your neck muscles, makes your ribs hurt, and makes grown-ass men giggle like little kids.
It’s an impressively smooth and flexible engine, too.  GM isn’t the only company that can build big pushrod V8′s that are happy to thunder around near 6,000 rpm, but this 6.4L motor will also whisk you past a minivan clogging up the left lane at 40mph in 4th gear.  It’s reminiscent of the kind of anywhere power that AMG V8′s make – which isn’t surprising, considering the amount of Mercedes  still left over in these cars.  Of course, it offers something that still hasn’t even been an option in an  – a clutch pedal.

 Sure, you could get with an automatic.  And it’d still run quarter mile times in the 12′s, it’d still send shivers up your spine when you plant your foot in the carpet, but you’re missing out on the intricacies,the little details that come with operating such a massively powerful motor with a traditional manual.  And this is a surprisingly good one: a heavy-duty Tremecwith a twin-disc Sachs clutch attached to ashort-throw six speed linkage (with a pistol-grip shifter!), the manual in an unobstructive, willingpartner.  Shift quality is great, much smoother than the Getrag in the Ford, and for this meaty of a motor, the clutch is suprisingly light.  Plus, you don’t get that slightly scary wiggle of the rear end when you shove home 2nd gear near the top end of first with an automatic.  The fact that the shifter itself is slightly cantedover towards the driver can either be viewed as A) a sign of just how damn big these cars are, or B) a small anachronism from the days of the original muscle cars.  The lever itself is taller than in Mustangs or Camaros, and the throws are a little longer, but it fits with the more relaxed, slack-fit nature of the Challenger compared with those cars.Is it fast?  Sure.  It’s about on par with a 5.0 with 3.73 final drive gears, or a Camaro SS 6-speed.  It would have trouble keeping sight of a GT500 or ZL-1, but it’s down nearly 80 horsepower on both of those beasts, so that’s no surprise.  Would you sweat numbers like that when driving it?  Absolutely not.  You’d be having too much fun.

 Where the Challenger differs the most from it’s competitors is the interior.  That is, there’s actually room for full-sized human beings in the front and back, and you can see out of it.  The rear seats on the Mustang and Camaro are best kept for small children or double amputees; a 6’1″ person sat comfortably in the back while I was driving.  You just don’t feel as crammed into the Challenger as you do the Camaro; although the Mustang is a tight fit as well, it’s not as bad due to having a reasonable ratio of glass to sheet metal

 Seats have always been a strong suit on Chrysler’sproducts, and the Challenger is no exception – the suede back and butt inserts are soft and grippy, and those big leather torso and thigh bolsters are just as comfortable as they look.  Downside?  While the restcars got new interiors with the update (300 the Challenger continues on with basic updates to the original interior.  It’s not quite as high-brow as the interior in the new Charger; but then again, I think I’d rather have a 6-speed manual (not available in any Charger or 300) than a new dashboard.  There’s a big touch-screen mounted in the center dash that does all the things you’d expect of a modern satnav/audio setup, there are heated seats, good gauges, so nothing of any real substance to complain about.  It’s not exactly an easy entry into the back seat of the Challenger, but this (along with the fuel economy) again falls under the “who cares?” heading.