2009 Dodge Challenger R/T: There is no doubt

Finally, somebody 'get's it'. It's not about the electronics
in this car. It's about the noise of the exhaust, the pull
from the 376 horses, and the joy of shifting yourself.

That's where the fun of the car is. "There is no doubt".

AND much to the disappointment of the MOPAR haters out there, the Challenger has been rock solid. I really love this car.

Wouldnt mind hearing some commentary on the interior's layout and materials quality. Most posts have remarked upon the exhaust, nav, and looks.

@wrinklebump
The interior is nothing special to look at but feels high quality with a lot of soft touch materials like the dash, armrests and center console.

The Challenger is a cool car. It is the kind of car that might even be described as a man's car, if we weren't in a more enlightened age. The essentials are there -- V8, macho styling, bass exhaust, manual tranny...

Thats kind of what I was wondering. The Ram's interior layout didnt dazzle me so I was surprised to find that the materials quality is generally pretty high.

Maybe ye olde Pentastar has finally turned the corner.

I checked out a Challenger SRT-8 not too long ago. The interior is decent for the price point. It reminded me a lot of the 300/Charger of course, which is not a bad thing. I was offended by the sheer size and clownish proportions of the vehicle though. You don't realize it until you look at it up close. I hate "waste" in a vehicle's dimensions, and it seemed like the Challenger is a humongous car for no good reason.

I think its proportions certainly fit its mission / style. It's a retro car. It's not trying to be a ultramodern sports coupe. It doesn't (and shouldn't) look like a 1-series.

German design has kind of corrupted the perceptions of what a coupe should look like. Whenever anyone mutters the word 'coupe,' everyone's mind instantly draws a tightly-wound E46 M3, forgetting that automakers used to make big coupes and they looked awesome. This coupe is big and it looks awesome, and that's fine.

Personally, I would find piloting this hog around town infinitely more gratifying that scooting about in a nondescript kraut luxo-box. Kind of goes back to the old spoiled-kid-in-rebadged-328-with-M-stickers-all-over-it argument - at least it's unique.

I think of this way.

50 years from now when your grandkid(s) asks "What type of car did you drive?" Do you want to tell him you drove a Prius, Insight or Mini E?

Or do you want to tell them that you drove a retro muscle machine reminiscent of the ones your great grandfathers drove in the days of cheap gas and roaring V8's.

LOL@ 'dink cars'. I'm going to start using that term.
"How's the cargo space in that dinkmobile you're driving these days?"

I thought "dink" meant "dual income no kids".
With that definition, I think the Challenger is more of a dink car!
I would buy a Challenger today if I had an extra $30k.

There is a V6 one in the used car lot near my house. They want $29k (!).
This thing is downright HUGE. The dimensions on paper don't seem to convey the Titanic-ness of the car. It is very tall and the front end seems to be jacked up (it's not).
A definitely commanding presence this car has. Just not my cuppa tea.
And the V6 is SLLLOOOOWWWW as sin.

As a DINK, I don't need a car that seats 4 people, regardless of the number of doors, a 2 seater is plenty.

As for "dinkmobile" being used as a term to put someone's car down, "How's the cargo space in that dinkmobile you're driving these days?", I actually consider my tiny car a symbol of my chosen life: not compromising my yearning for a pure driving machine to include any semblance of practicality (for better or worse). I'd consider a "dinkmobile" better than a "kid-hauling miniwagon" but that's just because I don't have to haul kids & excess gear. Someday I may need to, but until then, no compromises!

I thought "dink" was a racial slur directed against people of East Asian ancestry.

This car has really won me over. I was unimpressed when it first came out, but reading about it @ IL has made my opinion do a 180 (the kind of maneuver that would be fun in a Challenger). And normally I HATE "large coupes" like we saw in the 60's & 70's -- they always seemed like an unnecessary waste of space.

But after finally being able to see the Challenger up close at the LA Auto Show, I found that it didn't look as huge as it actually is...the stylists concealed it well, IMO. I feel exactly the same way about the new Taurus.

Long before the "dual income, no kids" acronym, dink, or dinky, meant small, cheap, insignificant.

Which would most definitely not apply to the Challenger, Mustang, or Camaro of the current generation. Here one would use another term first coined in earlier generations:

"Cool".

Guess it is my age but I grew up with the Monte Carlos, Cutlass Supremes, Thunderbirds, Cordobas, Grand Prixs .......I loved those big comfortable cars...It is hard for younger folks to remember how popular these cars were...in 1976 the best selling car was the Cutlass Supreme. I had a Cougar XR7 and loved it so much. I also liked the GM A body rear wheel drive coupes in the early '80s. They were so much more dependable than the front wheel drive GM cars of the era.

For a while, right after grad school, my wife and I both drove Monte Carlos. I'm afraid I don't share bodyblue's nostalgia for American midsize coupes.

Hers was a '79 model with the Buick V6. The driver's side window wouldn't get within an inch of properly closing, and had been like that since her great-aunt bought it new. Interior parts had been falling off since it was brand new, and the valve cover gaskets had to be replaced annually over the same period. Power? None to speak of. Handling? Not bad for its vintage, but by the time we got it, it was well past its prime. Still, on a nice country lane at no more than 50 mph, it was a sweet car with a very relaxed demeanor and a terrifically comfy sofa up front.

Mine was an '85 with the Chevy 4.3 V6--a rough and nasty motor, albeit capable of 27-28 mpg under the right circumstances. I bought it with 50k and sold it at 127k. In that period of hard daily commuting work, the car was utterly unpleasant pretty much all the time. The seats were awful, and the handling was worse. I replaced tires, brakes and shocks in an effort to make it feel sufficiently safe and driveable, with limited success. But I'll say this: it never broke.

Would I take a brand-new Challenger if it were offered? Sure. It's probably the best thing Chrysler builds right now, and it's evidently a terrific cruiser, better for that purpose than either the Mustang or Camaro. But I can't see spending $30k+ for any car right now, so the wife and I (here comes the happily-ever-after part) will continue to trundle along in the '09 Fit (mine) and the '02 Accord (hers) for the foreseeable future. Still, in five years, if there's a decent used R/T out there for $10-12k that hasn't been thrashed, I'd give it a close look.

My mom had a '81 Cutlass Supreme Brogham with the 231 V6. Would not pull a greasy string out of a cats butt......But it was smooth and quiet and rode great. It was super reliable and had a drivetrain that would not break....how can you break a Turbo-350C with 110 horsepower? I always wanted an 85 Hursl/Olds with slapstick shifters.....last of the cars you could get with a real 4 bbl carb. The Monte Carlo SS was ugly and the GNX was way cool but I liked the Olds.

I've wanted a 1970 Dodge Challenger since I was 12.... I was estatic when these came out in 2008 but sad to see only the SRT trim. Since Edmunds bought one for their long term test fleet I've followed every post. I would hafta say, after finally purchasing one this fall, I agree with most of the posts and I thank Edmunds for adding this to their fleet.

I love my 2010 Challenger RT 6spd, its the perfect muscle car cruiser. Simple, well made, fast, but still soft and reserved enough to be driven on New England Roads every day (OK, I'll admit, I have a garage for the winter!).

Also, every head that turns is an added bonus, and I am surprised to say, it does happen, a lot!

Thank you Edmunds!

I used to drive a 198something Pontiac Catalina. That thing was like sixteen miles long. Two vinyl bench seats. Two-tone exterior (rust, maroon). Power nothing. Slower than most dead guys I know. Probably my favorite car of all time.

Maybe it's just my area but I see way cooler people driving your so called "dink" cars then I do driving cars like the Challenger (or Camaro or Mustang).

Most modern muscle car owners are aging, balding, overweight and under some illusion that people are impressed with them by what they drive. Sadly true car guys who appreciate what they have are a minority.

So when you drive around looking down at the young people in the "dink" cars, remember most people are laughing at you too.

@firstwagon

"Most modern muscle car owners are aging, balding, overweight and under some illusion that people are impressed with them by what they drive. Sadly true car guys who appreciate what they have are a minority."

Perhaps you missed the fact that of Consumer Reports readers 92% of Challenger owners have said they are so satisfied they would but it again. That's an all-time high record - and knocked the Toyota Prius out of that spot from last year.
I wouldn't call that "a minority" of guys who appreciate what they have. That's a huge majority.

And the "way cooler" people label is very subjective. To you, way cooler could mean tatoos and piercings all over the face. To me, way cooler people are the ones driving a Challenger and not driving rice-burning dink cars to pinch pennies on gas as well as car payments while bouncing down the road on 13 inch tires.

Having a bad day there firstwagon? I won't trash you like you just trashed all Challenger owners.

Ummm, I think we need to come to an operational definition of a DINK car.

People who have 2 incomes and no kids (DINKs) usually have more disposable income than people with children or single folks (perhaps due to the cost of raising children and/or the reduction of the cost of living via splitting bills, not to mention the 2 income part) which makes them a lucrative market after which many companies pine. My perception of a DINK car a something that is not family friendly such as a 2 seater sports car or a truck or something that has 2 doors and perhaps a back seat meant for holding packages, not people.

@ challengerlife - my DINK car doesn't pinch pennies on gas, does not "burn rice" (your comment was, and still is, in poor taste), doesn't pinch pennies on car payments (as the car is paid for), and finally it doesn't "bounce down the road on 13 inch tires." If you have a challenger I'm glad you enjoy it - thats what my DINK car does for me (and no, its not a yellowmiata).

Cheers,
Kevin

"Having a bad day there firstwagon? I won't trash you like you just trashed all Challenger owners. "

Thanks, I was a little annoyed with people like Albert and others who seem to see no problem insulting owners of small cars. Just thought I'd point out the truth to them and see if they thought the insults were still funny.