2009 Dodge Challenger R/T: Mum's The Word For Premium Fuel

Disappointing to hear it needs premium.

What did you expect?

Most any car that has relativly good performance numbers needs preimium. You have to pay to play.

But does it NEED 91 octane? Or is that only to get the extra 4 hp?

Even if premium is .30 cents more than reg, what is an extra 6 bucks or so to get a little extra power. I find it funny that people buy a $30-$100k car and complain about a few extra $$$ for premium.

+1 jeepsrt

i agree with you. You shell out the money for the performance. But when people get the mantiancence cost and gas they freak.

Get the automatic if you can't get the big girl panties on and pay for 91 octane! sheesh.

The Challenger is big, fat and slow compared to the Camaro SS and Mustang but after driving a R/T... somehow the fantastic lines and rumble while you cruise make you not care at all.
It will probably be the best aging of the three. In 10 years, it will still look awesome.

Agree. This car will definitely age the best of the current american muscle cars.

Cruiserhead, All this car needs is a better suspension and some grippy tires and the gap in performance between the Camaro and Mustang would be much smaller. Not to mention they should compare the SRT8 Chally to the SS Camaro, much closer in performance than the R/T. Also, I looked at a Camaro this weekend, and came away unimpressed, the outward visibility and interior materials were horrible, the Challengert interior is boring but at least it is soft to the touch and high quality feeling.

My very similar 6.0L small-block Chevy in my G8 GT likes Premium, but runs fine on regular, thanks. SAE rated I get 361 hp and 385 lbft, but someone said once on here that with 87 oct I get 355 hp. Big deal.

However, let's say that it is $0.30/gal difference between regular and premium. For 18 gallons, that is $5.40. I don't think that is anything to sneeze at. I wonder if the fuel economy goes up with premium?

$5.40 is nothing for knowing you are putting in the required fuel for your car, I never complain about the higher cost of premium and I have 3 cars that require it.

Although my GTI is a turbo, where premium is definately required, the attendant (im in oregon), once put in regular...my milaged droped by at least 5mpg on the hwy and I really could feel the loss in performance.

jeepsrt... If they compare the Challenger SRT8 to the Camaro SS, would it also be fair to throw in the Mustang GT500? I agree with you on the Camaro interior. After being impressed with GM interiors on their newly introduced vehicles, the Camaro was a massive disappointment. It's bad enough to make me want to wait to see what the Mustang's new engines will be next year. If Ford can nearly match the Camaro's engine outputs, I think the Mustang will be what it always was in its class... the best overall package.

As for gasoline, I always just put what the manufacturer recommends. If you can afford a Challenger RT, I don't think the extra $6 or so per tank is going to hurt. And some have found that running lower octance than recommended ends up producing slightly less fuel mileage, so the cost all ends up about the same anyway.

R/T is a reasonable $33K
Camaro SS is a reasonable $33K

SRT8 is about $45K

Follow how the R/T is a natural comparison to the SS?

@Desmo
The owner's manual does not give any indication that 91 is "recommended" rather than "required." But like most modern cars, I think we can assume that it'll run fine on regular -- you just won't get the stated 376 and 410 power numbers.

Brent

R/T is a reasonable $33K
Camaro SS is a reasonable $33K

SRT8 is about $45K

Follow how the R/T is a natural comparison to the SS?

A Camaro well optioned is right at 40K, where the base SRT starts, take into account the Camaro does not come with Nav and they are close if not even on options. Taking into acct base models and the Challenger is a lot more, but the power is closer and that is what should be compared. Not trying to argue that's just my .02

you can build up a SS for around $34K that is well-optioned.

The SRT8 is a good $10K more than a SS.

Sure you can take any car and option the hell out of it but take a look and price them out yourself.
The natural comparison is between the R/T and SS.

I would be quite happy with a $34K SS. The R/T does not give you as much for the money.
However, the Challenger is pretty sweet and the style is so tempting.

The ouput is crap, with or without premium.

With the Camaro, GM put the $$$ into performance. Engine, Brakes and Trans are solid. They skimped out on the interior, obviously but for $34k for a nicely equipped Camaro SS, you get a ton for the money. I would love an SS with manual trans, RS pack. The SRT-8 is an awesome car but too pricey.

"The ouput is crap, with or without premium."

Compared to what? A six-figure exotic? Toyota's 5.7L in the Tundra puts out very similar numbers.

'"The ouput is crap, with or without premium."

Compared to what? A six-figure exotic? Toyota's 5.7L in the Tundra puts out very similar numbers.'

The Tundra only requires 87 octane. It's also a truck, so it's engine has to be tuned for more bottom end torque so it can get moving with heavy tow loads. The Challenger has no such constraints, so peak power and specific output should be much higher. The Challenger's specific output is worse than the Toyota Camry's 2.4L I4. Not exactly exotic.

Why does this car even benefit from premium? It's not high compression, turbocharged, or particularly high revving.

JeepSRT: Pardon the pedantry, but premium is 30 cents or $0.30, but not .30 cents more than regular. You're using Verizon math.

That said, I agree with your point on the cost Vs regular.

I like the Challenger, but I'm firmly in the camp with it being a terrible value. The R/T compares with the SS and Mustang GT and gets stomped.

Mad_science, I agree the Challenger is overpriced, but the SRT comes with a lot of standard features that if the Camaro had it would be much closer. Out of this group though I would choose the Mustang. Not really a bad choice in this group.

@SRT: I, too would choose the Mustang...basically by process of elimination.

The Challenger is simply too big, especially too tall, for my eyes. In pictures or at a distance, they look great. In the lane next to me, they look like trucks.

I was a huge new Camaro fan until I actually sat in one. It's got all the visibility of a blast shelter. No go in my book.

I don't find the new 'Stang particularly handsome, but it's getting great reviews for being a good driver's car. I care most about the view from the driver's seat.

Unless your name is "Inbred Jed", why would you not read the manual of your new performance car.

Get a Clue Edmunds people!!

Of the three cars there is not doubt the Challenger beats them all in real world driving comfort and practicality. The other are boy racers, for some 18 year old spoiled punk whos rich daddy bought him a new toy to kill himself in!!

As for the Mustang, until they get rid of the solid axle design, it is a relic and the ride is harsh. They would perform much better if they would only get independent suspension.

Even with it's weight, the Challenger's suspension could easily be upgraded to be on par with the other two muscle cars.

"Follow how the R/T is a natural comparison to the SS?"

The pricing argument is really ridiculous. If Dodge decided out of the blue to price the RT at $25k, would it spontaneously be comparable to a Cobalt SS? *Pricing is entirely arbitrary.* Prior to the Camaro, how many 425 hp cars in their catalog were priced at a cool $30k? Did they suddenly discover the fountain of cheap performance? All that time, the Corvette was ridiculously overpriced when they could have sold it at $30k?

The Camaro SS is priced at "$30k" because it is a ringer for the price tier. It's a marketing stunt, an intentional loss leader. If the Mustang and Challenger never even existed, do you think the Camaro SS would still be priced like it is when an Impala SS is priced at $30k? Are they comparable, as well?...interchangeable hardware?

$30k has for a while been the threshold for *entry level* v8 performance. Mustang GT has been the one exception, and they should be applauded for putting down the mark and not budging. The Challenger RT is exactly where it should be. ...and the Camaro SS is the ringer of the bunch. It would never be priced like it is under different circumstances. With the hp it is packing and all of the suspension goodies and wheel package, it is absolutely not "entry level" by any stretch of the imagination.

Even if Chevy lost their ever-loving mind and priced it at $25k, would anyone actually make the logical leap that the Cobalt SS has all along been an absolute rip-off, cash-cow since its inception?! Anybody?

Let's stay sensible and not gobble down the marketing maneuvering so literally, shall we?

@rtharak2, thanks, thats what I was gonna say.

Bottomline is, this car goes for 30k and all it offers is a truck engine with mediocre output and a two ton shell.

ace47- why do you keep reading this cars blog? You have made this same 'truck' comment over and over. Seems you have no interest in contributing anything but your dislike for this car. Just how much time have you spent behind the wheel of this or any of the cars you follow here? Do you have real behind the wheel experience to share, or just regurgitate what some professional reviewer told you. Do you notice people who have actually gotten behind the wheel actually modify their view based on first hand experience, not just repeat their prejudice.

And I am sorry, but when did 370 plus HP become mediocre output for a street legal coupe? A 1968 Ford Mustang GT500 had 335 HP, and a 1975 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 Hemi only had 245 HP and that was a tank at 4500lbs.

"Do you have real behind the wheel experience to share, or just regurgitate what some professional reviewer told you."

Actually, the professionals keep on yapping about the "bad" looks and V8 snarl. What I said was the truth and while the truth hurts, it doesn't change. This is a two ton car with a truck engine. Deal with it. Its no "sports" coupe. And no, I do not make a habit of driving these cars since none of them have impressed me much. Although in all fairness, the 2004 GTO did impress me a little bit. I usually try to get my hands on modified cars which are plentiful in my area or try out high end sportscars for a "behind the wheel" experience. If you want to talk about those, I do have some knowledge based on some experience.

"And I am sorry, but when did 370 plus HP become mediocre output for a street legal coupe? A 1968 Ford Mustang GT500 had 335 HP, and a 1975 Chrysler New Yorker with a 440 Hemi only had 245 HP and that was a tank at 4500lbs."

Hmm, lets see. What might a sports coupe mean? Nimble, lightweight, a decent revving engine. Sorry, this car has none of those capabilities. You seem to have behind the wheel experience of this car, what do you have to say? Looks great? Proper V8 magic? Handles like a charm in normal driving? Why are you even comparing 60's and 70's cars to this one, is that how bad it is?

Oh and if I really wanted to drive a true retro car, I would drive something like the original Z, which can in all probability hand this car its own rear end.

ace47- Get a life loser and get off this blog.

I think Ace47 is the leader of North Korea. What his name?

Interesting that the 5.7L in the Ram makes more power than the 5.7L in the Challenger.

badblackrt, I'll use your own words against you. The truth hurts ladies and obviously it is hurting you.

Leader of North Korea? Yeah, those people are sly all right. Only a North Korean leader would have the sense to diss a car on a car blog. Its my way of taking over the world.

"Hmm, lets see. What might a sports coupe mean? Nimble, lightweight, a decent revving engine."

I think what you are referring to would be considered a 2-seater sportster (Miata, Boxter, Solstice, that sort of fair).

"Sport Coupe" is a wide category of all sizes. At it's essence, it is simply a "fast car" that hasn't been rigidly boiled down to an all out "sports car". *Lot's* of cars fall into the sport coupe category- Hemi Challengers, included. That truth may hurt for you, but really, there's no reason for it to. As long as we are all having fun in the end, does it really matter how close any given modern car matches to an "original Z". It would be a rather boring world if everything did, I'd anticipate.

Open your mind...expand your world view.

R/T= two ton junk.

Looks like you've conceded your fallacious point, given your lack of substantive discussion. Now scoot off in your cute femmiata! :lol:

I think 'ace47' is implying that only ricers can be 'sporting' or powerful. You can always leave it to someone here to throw out some bs like that.