Page updated on 05-24-2018

I don't want to get anyone ticked off here but...

Automobile Maniac
11-19-2004, 11:15 PM
The 1968 Dodge Charger R/T 426 Hemi does 0-60 in 5.3 sec, 1/4 mile in 13.8.

Okay, a Subaru, a 4 door, 4 banger, 4 wheel drive (all wheel drive) can beat that-

The 2004 Subaru WRX (Sti) does 0-60 in 4.9, 1/4 mile in 13.2.

and the regular non special model that you can buy everywhere-

2002 Subaru Impreza WRX (regular) does 0-60 in 5.7, 1/4 mile in 14.4.

(specs are everywhere on the internet for those two proving those times)

My question is why is a Charger R/T with an original Hemi worth so much, when the Subaru's beat that, and can be driven every day, every where, all year long?

Jimi Hendrix04
11-20-2004, 09:30 AM
its becuz of rarity in my case
its a living legend sure a a 4 banger is better
but hell a charger can beat a rolls royce thats 300 grand and its jus rambling but thats my 2cents

11-20-2004, 10:21 AM
The answer should be easy for you to see. The Charger was big technology for its day, and things have since changed. The cars don't even compare, or come from the same country.

11-22-2004, 07:34 PM
the difference between the two is simple. you can put say 5000 into a charger and have like between 500 and 600 N/A. i dont think that you can do that with a little subaru motor. and also you can never beat that rumbling sound of a hemi charger. and also, how many chargers do you see just rollin down the street. you see subarus all the time, you do not see chargers jsut rollin around everywhere

Automobile Maniac
11-23-2004, 10:56 PM
The other thing I learned recently was that all Funny Cars/Top Fuel Dragsters/most anything running 6 sec. (or less) 1/4 mile times use the "real HEMI" engine from the mid-late sixties, is this true?

Don't get me wrong guy's I would love to own a real HEMI powered Mopar!

12-16-2004, 10:08 AM
Yea, I'm sure it's true, alot of the time loss is the HP to weight ratio, but you can pretty easily tune those cars to 500/600 N/A horse, and if you stuck a supercharger with a blower on that sucker you'd be unstopable, so come on now, who in there right mind would take a stupid econoboc WRX over a charger???? that's rite, no one except those stupid ricers....

12-16-2004, 04:13 PM
Subarus are made of plastic and aluminum, 68 Chargers are made of steel, and weigh much, much more. Also 68 Chargers came with skinny bias ply tires compared to the new performance radials of today.

12-24-2004, 12:25 PM
Well, while fuelers are loosely based on the "street hemi" (426, '64-'71), they share no more than the name and approximate external dimensions.
Current NHRA fuel class hemis are made of billet aluminum heads (no coolant), solid aluminum blocks, and VERY special valve train components. They are 500 CID, and make around 7,000 horsepower at 10,000 RPM. I'm told they can turn the boost up a bit more, and get to 8,000. Tires are the limiting factor in how much power can be put to the ground. Any more than the tires can hold, is wasted power.

As for comparing it to a Subaru or any other rice grinder, well, it's amtter of choice and perception. I'm on record about my feelings about the Chrysler quality of the muscle car era, I would still much rather be seen in a Dodge than a Subaru. There's more to a performance car or a muscle car than accelleration numbers. Don't believe everything you see in the movies... An Acura will not beat a hemi Charger unless the hemi is ill AND the Acura is pumped to the teeth. All the Charger needs to run 11s is tires.

01-06-2005, 03:41 PM
Took the words right out of my mouth. Tires are a HUGE factor. When you look at the 0-60 and 1/4 mile ETs for the Charger, you have to keep in mind that radial construction tires weren't around yet.

I saw a comparison once back in the late 80's......going from memory here........where they took a hemi Cuda (70??), in factory trim, and mounted some decent radial tires on it and ran the quarter. The car was 1/2-3/4 second faster. Today's tire technology is light years ahead of tires from the late 80's. Imagine what that same car would run with today's tires on it.

01-28-2005, 10:58 AM
I concur with the tire issue. Traction is HUGE. Why a hemi charger....A few will be still worth a ton of money in 5 years if kept up. That Subaru will depreciate. Who will want to restore a 2005 subaru in 2035 ??/ How many 2005 subaru driver's get the thumbs up look when they are crusin?? My opinion on subaru's and other new stuff at cruises and shows......if it don't have chrome......leave it at HOME....

02-01-2005, 10:04 PM
When adding mods or upgrades, you'll got a LOT more out of your money on the charger than any suburu. And you'll get a lot more out of the hemi than you'll ever get with that little 4 banger. A 7sec mopar is more likely than getting that time with a suburu.(unless you got $150k)

03-06-2005, 10:24 PM
The preformance differences were not really do to weight. A stock '92 Honda civic weighs in over 3300 lbs. Just shy of a late-model A body. A friend who owns a 383cid powered '69 Charger weighed his car, and it came in under 4000 lbs IIRC. The differences are in the saftey regulations. Not only are seatbelts and crumple zones and other such mandatory, so are heavy reinforcements behind both bumpers, along both sides, and in the roof, to meet certain specs. These raised vehicle weights considerably, an early to mid year A body weighed in around 2700 lbs with a 340. My car, a '73, weighed considerably more, 3400+. It also killed the convertible for a while.

As mentioned, traction was far poorer back then, due to tire construction. 425 horsepower and 490 lb/ft of torque mean nothing if the tires are just spinning. Between higher-quality radial tires and electronic traction controls, you can get a far better launch in a modern car than any classic.

Also, the 1st and 2nd gen Chargers, as the vast majority of cars back then, were not tested in a wind tunnel. The design of the grill mad a real nice air "scoop" which hurt preformance. Thus the Charger 500 and the later Daytona models, which would do much better than a stock '69 R/T even on non-radials. Also, the recessed rear window created a vacumn, which did something or another. Probably to the handling and rear traction, as the rear may float due to the lessened pressure on the rear of the car.

06-20-2005, 02:10 AM
i love mopars, nothing looks as sexy as a late 60s b body, or the e body, nothing!!! but lets get this right. you can put 5k into a suby and get that much power. hell, i can put 3500 and crank out 600hp from my grand prix 4door family car, and that is at the wheels!!!. and, the suby is dreamed up in japan, but in all actuallity, it is assembled in richmond indiana, used to live by it. but we all agree, the hemi would stomp that suby if you put the hemi IN the suby. that little 2.5 makes a buzz, not a GROWL. dont be confused, realise which car has nuts, and which one is a chick car.

want a supra
06-20-2005, 02:15 AM
Stop bring up old theads!

Add your comment to this topic!