Other Vehicles. Other Jeep models & cars and trucks of other makes Talk any vehicle tech in here other than Cherokees.

2012 Challenger srt yellow jacket

Old May 17, 2012 | 11:29 PM
  #16  
Jeepineasy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Model: Cherokee
Default

But everyone has mustangs( not hating cause I love my moms 2011 5.0) I think the challengers did the best looking like the orginal
Reply
Old May 18, 2012 | 12:07 AM
  #17  
HockeyNTrucks's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 i6 HO
Default

mexico is better than china as far as im concerned. still nothing beats old american muscle.
Reply
Old May 21, 2012 | 09:25 AM
  #18  
MoparMiller's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: Virginia
Year: 1993
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 - 6cyl
Default

indeed. tis why i got my 73 challenger on the road still
Reply
Old May 21, 2012 | 11:55 AM
  #19  
FlJeeper90's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: FLORIDA
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

you see mustangs all the time. And there's a reason, they were the most popular pony car from the start, hince the name "pony car". And then there's the camaro, which I don't think even comes close to the mustang or Challenger. But the Mustang and Camaro were always more popular than the Challenger and the Cuda.
Attached Thumbnails 2012 Challenger srt yellow jacket-old-vs-new-wallpapers_11968_1280x9601.jpg  
Attached Images   
Reply
Old May 21, 2012 | 11:44 PM
  #20  
jusper88's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
From: Roswell, NM
Year: 1997
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 L
Default

I think the Camaro looks closer to original than the others. I saw on Powerblock on Spike TV weekends a few weekends ago where someone put the old school camaro front on a new school camaro rear. Looked like the Chevy bowtie took a dump and out came that.
Reply
Old May 30, 2012 | 10:32 PM
  #21  
SoCal2kXJ's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Very nice!
Here's mine...
Name:  CIMG0134.jpg
Views: 469
Size:  133.7 KB
Name:  CIMG0133.jpg
Views: 626
Size:  129.0 KB
Name:  45e964b4.jpg
Views: 143
Size:  97.9 KB
Reply
Old May 30, 2012 | 10:35 PM
  #22  
Moparboy01's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,270
Likes: 0
From: Genoa, IL
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
Default

^^^^SICK!!!!^^^^
Reply
Old May 30, 2012 | 10:43 PM
  #23  
200sportxj's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0l
Default

For a 50k$ car they arent very fast.

I raced a srt when they first came out and it hardly pulled on me. I own a 94 firebird formula, slightly modded maybe 350hp at the time, but not claiming 425 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque out of a 6.1-liter like the earlier srt8 challengers.

And yes i know they make more power now. I contribute it to the 4170 curb weight, of it being rather slow for the power. And that is the problem i see with all the new big cars, they are as small as they used to be.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 02:16 AM
  #24  
Tx9h6e4cuda's Avatar
Seasoned Member
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Model: Cherokee
Default

Nice Challengers, best looking cars hands down.

I'd Ryan Dunn the hell outta that thing, but sober, not crash, not die, or kill my passenger.

Nice yellow jacket saw one on a transport a couple of months ago.

Last edited by Tx9h6e4cuda; May 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 07:59 AM
  #25  
FlJeeper90's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: FLORIDA
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

All of the cars now weigh so damn much, that 420hp aint really nothing considering the hp-to-weight ratio. Why do you think motorcycles walk away from cars with only 130-180 hp? The weight. Plus they all have traction control, stability control, and all kinda other bull****. But for looks, the challenger looks the best IMO, but everyone has their own.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 08:45 AM
  #26  
hankthetank's Avatar
CF Veteran
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,322
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Psshh, I think the Nissan GTR is a better lookin car than the challenger...imo.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 09:54 AM
  #27  
SoCal2kXJ's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by 200sportxj
For a 50k$ car they arent very fast.

I raced a srt when they first came out and it hardly pulled on me. I own a 94 firebird formula, slightly modded maybe 350hp at the time, but not claiming 425 hp and 420 lb-ft of torque out of a 6.1-liter like the earlier srt8 challengers.

And yes i know they make more power now. I contribute it to the 4170 curb weight, of it being rather slow for the power. And that is the problem i see with all the new big cars, they are as small as they used to be.
Mine runs a 12.6 with a crappy launch. Not too bad for a 4200lb car. Yeah I've modded mine but its only the 5.7 with a 6speed.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 09:58 AM
  #28  
FlJeeper90's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: FLORIDA
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

psssshhhhtttt, get that garbage out of here. lol There is one at my dealership. $108k for that??? I think not. I will just step up and just get a ZR1 vette and be done. The GTR is almost just as heavy as the Challenger and Camaro. Its AWD, but for that money, I think I would buy a Subie and add about 30K worth of performance parts. But I guess part of the GTR's appeal, is that you don't see them around all that often. I mean, the Subaru WRX STI is prolly a better car, but when you pull up in front of the mall, people go "that's pretty cool", but you pull up in a GTR, and people are like "WTF is that? Its AWESOME!!!" Kinda like a Lamborgini, they're not all that great of a car, they just don't make a ton of them and they use fancier parts. The GTR is a really cool car tho
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 10:05 AM
  #29  
200sportxj's Avatar
Member
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0l
Default

Originally Posted by SoCal2kXJ
Mine runs a 12.6 with a crappy launch. Not too bad for a 4200lb car. Yeah I've modded mine but its only the 5.7 with a 6speed.
I see a supercharger under your hood.

You still spent like 50k on the car. And the supercharger kit prolly set you back 5k atleast if not more.

I have 4500$ into my car, and about 1k$ in mods at the time. ran a 13.4 last time it was out at the track. Rebuilt the motor in my garage now and should be around 400 hp, and still maybe put 800$ into the rebuild. So i have maybe 7k$ into my car, and its shiny, has fancy wheels, weighs 1k pound less then a challenger. and will certainly give it a run for its money now.
Reply
Old May 31, 2012 | 10:27 AM
  #30  
SoCal2kXJ's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Default

Originally Posted by 200sportxj
I see a supercharger under your hood.

You still spent like 50k on the car. And the supercharger kit prolly set you back 5k atleast if not more.

I have 4500$ into my car, and about 1k$ in mods at the time. ran a 13.4 last time it was out at the track. Rebuilt the motor in my garage now and should be around 400 hp, and still maybe put 800$ into the rebuild. So i have maybe 7k$ into my car, and its shiny, has fancy wheels, weighs 1k pound less then a challenger. and will certainly give it a run for its money now.
It's an RT. I spent $34k plus tax and license. Magnacharger used my car to build their kit so I spent a lot less than you think.
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 PM.