Karl on Cars - 2008 Challenger vs. 2008 Bullitt Mustang: Who Wins?

2008 Challenger vs. 2008 Bullitt Mustang: Who Wins?

The immediate answer is, "I don't know for sure" because I didn't instrument test these vehicles or carefully analyze every aspect (cargo capacity, price/value, audio system, etc.). But I did hijack a couple staffers and we took both cars on a driving loop through Mulholland.

Beileve it or not, there's some kind of embargo on Dodge Challenger driving impressions. Seems impossible, considering I've read several First Drives about the car, including our own, and they all include driving impressions. Don't get me started on the stupidity of road test embargos in 2008, that's a discussion for another day (maybe next Tuesday...). Anyway, I can't believe it's "against the rules" to reiterate what our First Drive already says, so here goes.

The Challenger has "immediate and emphatic throttle response and the swelling rumble of an engine breathing through big-bore plumbing." It also "lunges off the corners and swallows the straights, its sustained thrust complemented by long riffs of resonant mechanical music." In terms of acceleration, "Think zero to 60 mph in the low 5-second range and a standing quarter in the mid-13s."

Okay, enough of that silliness. Let's talk about the Bullitt Mustang in comparison to the Challenger. I'm sure that's fine...

The Ford feels much lighter and more responsive, not surprising considering the 800-pound weight disparity. Between the 315 horsepower V8 and the five-speed manual transmission it's not just easy to drift the Bullitt, it's fun, too. Traversing narrow canyon roads doesn't feel (or look) like stuffing a 2008 Britney Spears into a 2001 Britney Spears outfit. Concerned with scraping the right fender or quarter panel against rock outcroppings at the apex? Not in the Mustang...

Oh, and we recorded a 5.2-second zero-to-60 time from Ford's Highland Green pony car, so if the Challenger delivers on that estimated "low 5-second range" it means the two will essentially be a wash in terms of acceleration. I guess the Challenger's 110 horsepower advantage pretty much evaporates when traveling through a five-speed slushbox while pulling around the equivalent of three well-fed Jack Blacks compared to the 'Stang.

My personal prediction (prediction, not factual, embargo-breaking report, of course) is that such an estimation is accurate. The cars will...um, probably be a dead heat if raced on a deserted section of PCH...or at a controlled test facility with speed-measuring equipment.

Interior analysis suggests the Mustang suffers from less-than-ideal ergonomics. It's much better than the previous-generation car, but the shifter and steering wheel location still don't feel quite right. And what's with the overwrought (and sunlight glaring) "engine-turned" dash. The King of Cool would not approve.

The Challenger...based on photos and brief seat time on static displays at auto show stands...seems like it would offer higher overall material quality versus the Mustang...probably. I'm guessing the SRT-8's seat also offers greater lateral support and overall comfort. But who really knows (or can say) at this point?

The 2008 Dodge Challegner SRT-8 starts at $38,000. The 2008 Ford Mustang Bullitt starts at $31,000. Which one is the better homage to past glory? I still don't know for sure.

But in this case I'd rather take a Bullitt than wrestle with a Challenger.

Posted by Karl Apr 17, 2008 6:00 am

Permalink

Categories: Dodge | Ford

Comments

clace - Apr 17, 2008 8:37 am (#8 Total: 27)

Give me a 25k mustang gt with 5k of the various options and I'll be swell. The Challenger is cool but it's sheer mass is off-putting to me.

ahightower - Apr 17, 2008 8:49 am (#9 Total: 27)

Texas

Okay, the Britney and Jack Black references were hysterical.

1487 - Apr 17, 2008 9:17 am (#10 Total: 27)

Philadelphia PA United States of America

The SRT Challenger will definitely be way more than a Mustang GT. The Challenger will probably do pretty well just by being the new kid on the block even if the Mustang is cheaper and lighter.

I'm guessing the embargo on performance testing has something to do with cars not being on sale yet. My understanding is that the Challenger wont be availble for sale until May.

syke - Apr 17, 2008 9:33 am (#11 Total: 27)

United States of America

OK, you're completely guessing on the Challenger, and aren't allowed to write about it in the first place - so there was a reason for this review? Besides getting your daily article in under deadling?

Thanks, but I'll wait for the review when both cars can be taken from the production line and actually thrashed against one another.

editor_karl - Apr 17, 2008 9:39 am (#12 Total: 27)

L.A. CA United States of America

Ummm...I think somebody missed something...

yankeez - Apr 17, 2008 9:46 am (#13 Total: 27)

Heavier weight and higher costs aside, I'd still prefer the Challenger - mostly because Mustangs are freakin everywhere you look - I'll gladly pay a little more for a little exclusivity.

And I still have to wonder why Ford insists on saddling its V8 Mustangs (except the Shelby and Saleen models) with its stuck-in-the-1980s 5-speed manual transmission... come ON! Chevy introduced their 6-speed manual for the Camaro Z28 as far back as 1993 (and the Corvette as far back as 1988)... why Ford still, after all this time, flat-out refuses to offer one in its V8 Mustangs has always been a head-scratching mystery.

iskch - Apr 17, 2008 9:47 am (#14 Total: 27)

First, that rear view mirror picture brings the memory of Bullitt the movie. Base on the disparity of weight the Mustang will feel more nimble. I drove the Bullitt and I can like it but it felt kind of truckish with the solid axle suspension and the interior is just plain boring. That is why Ford put those color lights inside for some entertaiment I guess.

Now, if we are going to compare prices I will suggest the Challenger SRT-8 vs the Shelby GT which is almost the same price. The Shelby GT handles better than the Bullitt base on the suspension upgrade.

chevy598 - Apr 17, 2008 10:26 am (#15 Total: 27)

I think the mustang being that light is a drawback in some senses. I had a 2000 GT Mustang and that thing was a nightmare on the roads where I live (Michigan). You’ve got to be careful driving on the highway when there is even light rain coming down. I leave for work at 5am, and at that time of day you have to worry about black ice from November through April where I live. That’s 6 months of the year.

Being heavier, I would take the Challenger in the hopes that it would be a better daily driver when the weather gets bad. If I lived somewhere that had better weather it might be a different story. Where I live now, you have to factor bad weather handling into the equation if it’s going to be a daily driver.

chevy598 - Apr 17, 2008 10:32 am (#16 Total: 27)

This is way off topic. GM just posted a picture of the Volts battery pack, and did a little right up on it. Some of you guys (enthusiast) might want to take a look. I can't believe it's that small.

http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=491

gmg66 - Apr 17, 2008 2:31 pm (#17 Total: 27)

The challenger just looks so big to me, but I'll hold judgement until I see one on the road. I do see many nice looking Mustang GTs on the road and they sound great also. However I rented a Mustang recently and was shocked at how cheap the interior looked and felt. And the doors and side windows rattled. Very disappointing. I couldn't imagine living with one every day.

estreka - Apr 17, 2008 2:48 pm (#18 Total: 27)

subarctic north - Great Falls, MT

A Roush Mustang is a far better deal.

ddastardly - Apr 17, 2008 3:03 pm (#19 Total: 27)

I think I'd choose the Challenger over the Mustang, it's looks are growing on me (Despite the oversized rims and I hate the orange paint) and the interior's better and I've owned a Mustang in the past and would not buy another. But in reality, I'd buy neither, I'd get a BMW 135i.

estreka - Apr 17, 2008 4:08 pm (#20 Total: 27)

subarctic north - Great Falls, MT

The rear end on a Roush is far more advanced than a regular GT. It can actually handle the power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1s9zG0FAqQ

savetheland - Apr 17, 2008 4:47 pm (#21 Total: 27)

CA United States of America

Ford should certainly make Mercury version of Mustang - with better interior and IRS, so you are not ashamed to drive one. But not Lincoln version again - it will be ridiculous when Ford goes for Lincoln version of everything Ford makes lately.

chevy598 - Apr 17, 2008 5:10 pm (#22 Total: 27)

I can't believe that Mustang has a live axle rear end. Ford is still living in the past with that rear end. I was suprised when they did the retro remake that they didn't do a IRS. If a road was choppy my Mustang would want to bounce from one lane to the other.

parchisi64 - Apr 17, 2008 10:00 pm (#23 Total: 27)

I believe that a 5 speed transmission is plenty of gears for a cheap sports car. More gears does not necessarily mean better, especially with the wide torque curve of the 3v 4.6. On many 6 speeds, the 6th gear is just used for highway fuel economy anyways. Plus, people praise the mustang for affordable performance, but then bash it for not having all the exotic parts. If you are that broke up about it, you can always swap in a T56.

About the solid rear axle, many more people drag race Mustangs than road race them or autocross them. Launching on the dragstrip, a SRA is much better than an IRS. Also there is that whole "affordable" thing going on too. And before people start disparaging the solid axle too much, what rear axle is on the FR500C? You know the one that's beating BMW's and Porsches? Yeah, its still sporting that solid rear axle.

Stop trying to make the Mustang something it isn't folks. Its not an exotic sports car, its a pony car, and in that respect it works very well.

andersendl - Apr 18, 2008 5:59 am (#24 Total: 27)

Karl nailed this one. The Challenger, way cool as it is, is just too porky at over 2 tons. Remember - under that sexy skin it's essentially a prior generation E class Benz/Chrysler 300. That's a a good thing, but a heavy one at that. And while the 'Stang is no real lighweight either, it at least gets the power to weight ratio more right than the Dodge. As "parchisi" says in his post, the Mustang works very well, and this is because it remains true to the classic American muscle/pony car formula (relatively speaking): Simplicity+Light weight+Power+Low Price = Bang for the Buck.

1487 - Apr 18, 2008 12:47 pm (#25 Total: 27)

Philadelphia PA United States of America

"Remember - under that sexy skin it's essentially a prior generation E class Benz/Chrysler 300. "

I have seen this repeated a few times and I don't think that is the case. My recollection is that Chrysler used steering, suspension components and the 5 speed auto from the old E class. I do not remeber them saying the chassis is the same as the E class. If you look at the overall dimensions of the LX cars vs the old E class it's pretty obvious they are not the same. Chrysler used some MB components, not the MB platform. the old E class was far lighter than the LX cars so the weight of the Challenger has nothing to do with MB engineering.

andersendl - Apr 18, 2008 2:55 pm (#26 Total: 27)

You may be right about that 1487. (I should have qualified that part of my comments with "I seem to recall reading somewhere that...."). Still, the 300 platform on which the Challenger is based, whatever its origin, is a heavy one. Too heavy for this type of car, IMO. The Mustang should be 200 pounds lighter than it is too.

All manfacturers are guilty of procuding too many vehicles these days that are just too darned heavy. But that's a whole other topic of discussion/argument.

estreka - Apr 18, 2008 4:00 pm (#27 Total: 27)

subarctic north - Great Falls, MT

I half-heartedly blame the Germans for our weight problems. Everyone wants a car that feels significant or solid, and those require weight.