RE: mustang vs charger??
Login  | |
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/12/2006 11:26:33 PM
|
|
|
Sidewayz4.6
Posts: 33
Joined: 9/18/2004
Status: offline
|
I'll just throw my $.02 in here. Having just gotten back from Vacation, and while I was there, I rented an '06 Charger V6. HOLY CRAP, I don't think I've ever driven a car this slow. Honestly, I was really disappointed with the car as a whole. I realize that rental cars are base models, but the seats were extremely uncomfortable. To the point where I couldn't wait to get out because my back hurt that bad. As far as the lack of power issue, if you're in an area where you need to pass a car or two, plan it well and leave yourself plenty of room.
I also don't care for the huge headrest. If you plan on looking over your shoulder, you can't see a thing. The dash was laid out fairly well I thought. Although, I don't much care for the plasticy cheap base model feel. I did like that there was an input for an Ipod on the front of the radio. I feel that Chrysler could have put a little more thought into this car. I really was planning on getting an SRT-8 Charger within the next year, but now I may rethink my decision...
_____________________________
'05 Pontiac GTO
'04 Grand Cherokee Limited
'88 Mustang GT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/13/2006 12:29:58 AM
|
|
|
silvercoupe97
Posts: 2197
Joined: 6/7/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sidewayz4.6
I'll just throw my $.02 in here. Having just gotten back from Vacation, and while I was there, I rented an '06 Charger V6. HOLY CRAP, I don't think I've ever driven a car this slow. Honestly, I was really disappointed with the car as a whole. I realize that rental cars are base models, but the seats were extremely uncomfortable. To the point where I couldn't wait to get out because my back hurt that bad. As far as the lack of power issue, if you're in an area where you need to pass a car or two, plan it well and leave yourself plenty of room.
I also don't care for the huge headrest. If you plan on looking over your shoulder, you can't see a thing. The dash was laid out fairly well I thought. Although, I don't much care for the plasticy cheap base model feel. I did like that there was an input for an Ipod on the front of the radio. I feel that Chrysler could have put a little more thought into this car. I really was planning on getting an SRT-8 Charger within the next year, but now I may rethink my decision...
The SRT8 has a 6.1L V8 not the V6...different motor altogether, though the interior will be the same in feel.....then again, all the American made cars have too much plastic anyway, according to the British.
_____________________________
Thanks,
John
^click the sig for list of mods.
and 2005 Grand Caravan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/13/2006 8:51:37 AM
|
|
|
Rivalry
Posts: 106
Joined: 4/14/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sidewayz4.6
I'll just throw my $.02 in here. Having just gotten back from Vacation, and while I was there, I rented an '06 Charger V6. HOLY CRAP, I don't think I've ever driven a car this slow. Honestly, I was really disappointed with the car as a whole. I realize that rental cars are base models, but the seats were extremely uncomfortable. To the point where I couldn't wait to get out because my back hurt that bad. As far as the lack of power issue, if you're in an area where you need to pass a car or two, plan it well and leave yourself plenty of room.
I also don't care for the huge headrest. If you plan on looking over your shoulder, you can't see a thing. The dash was laid out fairly well I thought. Although, I don't much care for the plasticy cheap base model feel. I did like that there was an input for an Ipod on the front of the radio. I feel that Chrysler could have put a little more thought into this car. I really was planning on getting an SRT-8 Charger within the next year, but now I may rethink my decision...
How many cars do you testdrive a year? I test drive alot and none of them are fast, The seem to chip them down or limit thier performance because they dont want people tearing them up.
I have a 2000 Mustang and I have a new 06 Charger and The only thing I dont like about the Charger seats are the suede inserts. The headrest to me was never an issue, (I dont consider it huge), All in all I still dont see a comparison with the Charger to Mustang debate here. Both cars look sharp and thats about all you can compare....which one looks better to you?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/13/2006 3:37:52 PM
|
|
|
Hemifyd
Posts: 61
Joined: 4/23/2006
Status: offline
|
Seems we have alot of novice ideas here. A rental car vs. a muscle car with a Mustang photo to boot? Frankly I am unbiased about a make other than it is fast but and a V6 in a 4000 lb car is ALWAYS going to be slow. The worst is the 2.7L in a Magnum.
Just to put my money where my mouth is I had one of the first 1985 Saleen Mustangs with a 4 barrel 302 and my 5.7L Daytona Charger would have kicked its butt and hauled 4 of my buddies at the same time... Bring on the GTO especially the 350 HP one. The SRT-8 beat the car hands down C&D only chose it because it was CHEAPER... a Daytona with $1500 in mods would run the same numbers as the SRT-8 in the quarter and produce the same rear wheel HP.
And as far as ethonal not producing power and costing too much... first of all grain alcohol will easily produce over 100 octane... e-85 is a watered down verison of its true potential. Brazil has enough confidence in it to boycott all oil based fuels because they are sick of the BS.
America won't do the same until we get oil well owning presidents & congressmen out of office. Much like a vehicles cost supply and demand create new means of cutting costs as the more is made the less it cost to make it. Our taxes already pay farmers not to farm their land because we don't have a need for all the grain they could produce if we had the demand. And how about the billion dollars we are spending in a war over seas over oil (yeah yeah terrorism caused by the same greed). Subsides the grain fuel with these dollars and maybe we can make American farmers rich and tell some others to go " pound their own sand"...
As far as gas prices go I'd know I bought a toy and if I wanna play I'm gonna pay... but I personally will pay 20 cents more a gallon for grain based fuels if it turns the future of our economy around period.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/14/2006 2:20:56 AM
|
|
|
Sidewayz4.6
Posts: 33
Joined: 9/18/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hemifyd
Seems we have alot of novice ideas here. A rental car vs. a muscle car with a Mustang photo to boot? Frankly I am unbiased about a make other than it is fast but and a V6 in a 4000 lb car is ALWAYS going to be slow. The worst is the 2.7L in a Magnum.
Just to put my money where my mouth is I had one of the first 1985 Saleen Mustangs with a 4 barrel 302 and my 5.7L Daytona Charger would have kicked its butt and hauled 4 of my buddies at the same time... Bring on the GTO especially the 350 HP one. The SRT-8 beat the car hands down C&D only chose it because it was CHEAPER... a Daytona with $1500 in mods would run the same numbers as the SRT-8 in the quarter and produce the same rear wheel HP.
And as far as ethonal not producing power and costing too much... first of all grain alcohol will easily produce over 100 octane... e-85 is a watered down verison of its true potential. Brazil has enough confidence in it to boycott all oil based fuels because they are sick of the BS.
America won't do the same until we get oil well owning presidents & congressmen out of office. Much like a vehicles cost supply and demand create new means of cutting costs as the more is made the less it cost to make it. Our taxes already pay farmers not to farm their land because we don't have a need for all the grain they could produce if we had the demand. And how about the billion dollars we are spending in a war over seas over oil (yeah yeah terrorism caused by the same greed). Subsides the grain fuel with these dollars and maybe we can make American farmers rich and tell some others to go " pound their own sand"...
As far as gas prices go I'd know I bought a toy and if I wanna play I'm gonna pay... but I personally will pay 20 cents more a gallon for grain based fuels if it turns the future of our economy around period.
Wow. How were any of my ideas novice? I gave my opinion on a car based on my experience with it. I also said in my post "I realize that it was a base model rental car." I didn't compare it to the Mustang at all. In fact, I'd take a base model charger over a new Mustang any day. (Not that I would buy a base model anything) I hate the new Mustangs.
Not to mention that statement about how we are spending billions on a war over OIL? And you call me a novice? You should probably stop watching the Liberal media propaganda bullshit.
And to the other guy...I understand that the SRT has a different engine all together. Duh. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
_____________________________
'05 Pontiac GTO
'04 Grand Cherokee Limited
'88 Mustang GT
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/14/2006 9:23:10 AM
|
|
|
IXLR8
Posts: 376
Joined: 12/27/2005
From: Katy, TX
Status: offline
|
Why did no one bother to compare the back seats? The Mustang rear seat could be considered a birth control device. I would hate to ever have to ask anyone to sit back there... The Charger on the other hand carry's 4 large adults all day long in comfort. The rental Mustang I had (here comes the rental car again) did not have enough room for my 3 year old daughter to sit behind me while I drove. Why did they even bother to put a back seat in a Mustang?
_____________________________
I feel a need... a need for SPEED !!
GMG Daytona
Only insecure people list mods...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/15/2006 4:45:12 PM
|
|
|
Kingelvis
Posts: 94
Joined: 6/8/2004
Status: offline
|
Nobody has mentioned that even the V6 Mustang insurance (for me anyway) would be about $1200/year, while the Charger V6 is $960 - that may not sound big, but it adds up. I had a 2005 GT and it was over $1300/year.
The Mustang lists for a lot less $20,000 vs. $22,700 but automatic costs an extra $1000 in the Mustang and is standard on Charger.
Both have power accessories standard, though the Charger is definitely "more car."
In the styling department, the Mustang looks 10x better.
In the engineering department, the Charger has the Mercedes platform with independent rear suspension and a softer ride vs. the rather crude but effective Mustang chassis.
I had the GT, but I'm betting the base Mustang will basically run rings around the V6 Charger in handling.
Charger has slightly more horsepower/lb (250/4000=16, 210/3500lbs=16.67), but has "highway" 2.87:1 gearing vs 3.31:1 for the Mustang, so I'm sure the Mustang would have more off the line punch.
I just bought an SE Charger and have both a lower payment and lower insurance compared to the GT, and mine listed for nearly $24G with the power chair and pedal package. 1.5 year old GT really held its value well. To us mortals, $100+/month is substantial. I'm also hoping the SE's 19/29mpg rating will pay off compared to the GT's 17/25mpg. I was getting about 13 or 14mpg in real life, and I'm hoping the 3.5L will have actual mileage of about 18mpg.
In NW Chicago, Chargers are actually much more common even than the V6 Mustang, though I think you should buy what you like no matter what others do.
It's notably harder parking the Charger - this is basically an old school full size car in wheelbase.
These two are really not in the same class, though they are both ostensibly marketed as retro supercars.
Having owned both cars, I can say that the Charger is much more boring, but a much more relaxing, quiet car to drive. It comes down to what you want. If it's a big sedan with some "edge" to it, then the Charger. If it's a pseudo "sports car" with loads of sex appeal and flair, go with the Mustang.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/15/2006 5:08:53 PM
|
|
|
BadStratRT
Posts: 20848
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
|
i also had a rental charger, and i rent and test drive ALOT of cars, seeing as how i do new car reviews, and nothing that sidewayz said is untrue.
whether he has a mustang and GTO, or a handful of vipers, his comments werent unfounded. i have also had a rental charger, and it was a pig, but i didnt expect it to be fast. i would have liked, however, if it would have been comfortable. the seats were uncomfortable about an hour into my 5 hour drive, and i didnt like the fact that there was no where to rest my left arm (with which i drive). in my stratus, i can rest my arm on the window sill, or the door mounted arm rest, but in the charger, neither was comfortable.
as for the back seat, i was only back there for a bit, and i was facing down most of the time...so i didnt pay much attention to the comfort level...
quote:
Just to put my money where my mouth is I had one of the first 1985 Saleen Mustangs with a 4 barrel 302 and my 5.7L Daytona Charger would have kicked its butt and hauled 4 of my buddies at the same time
a 1985 saleen mustang is a pig..i would hope that a new charger would beat it...and why do you keep saying "daytona"? its 5 hp...RT would do. of the 128 saleen mustangs built in 1985, they were nothing but suspension and appearance packages, so in a straight line, its only good for high 14 seconds...saleen didnt start building the motors up until the late 80s 90s with the SSC.
quote:
Bring on the GTO especially the 350 HP one. The SRT-8 beat the car hands down C&D only chose it because it was CHEAPER...
im not sure what you mean here, as the stock srt8s (bone stock) are good for mid to low 13s...where as the M6 LS1 GTOs are high 13s, but your comparing a high end car to a mid level car...put the LS2 GTO in there, which sidewayz has, and the race with a bone stock srt-8 is over quickly, since his automatic GTO runs 12.80s...ive seen an srt-8 run that, but not stock.
2006 charger srt-8 msrp-35,320
2006 ls2 gto msrp-31900
3,400 more for the slower srt-8?
quote:
a Daytona with $1500 in mods would run the same numbers as the SRT-8 in the quarter and produce the same rear wheel HP.
on an engine dyno, with no load, people have gotten over 450 horsepower out of the 6.1L, but even going by the listed hp of 425, (which we all know is under rated) you need 75 horsepower out of a daytona to equal the listed horsepower. other than nitrous, what 1500 in mods are getting you 75 horsepower?
< Message edited by BadStratRT -- 5/15/2006 5:16:00 PM >
_____________________________
A True Dodge Enthusiast with a vehicle history to prove it.
Rules Number 3 and 7.
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/18/2006 2:43:46 AM
|
|
|
Hemifyd
Posts: 61
Joined: 4/23/2006
Status: offline
|
In all fairness to the Ford boys and as a clarification my Saleen was not stock. Comp cam, Holly double pumper, High rise manifold and gears, but at best it was only 325 HP.
Secondly Car and Driver (not I ) compares a GTO to a SRT-8 and chose the now to be discontinued aussie because it was more bang for the buck however a more equal comparison of a equally priced Daytona and Mustang GT would be more appropriate. IF it such a great car how come no one will buy it. Also being a part of the collision industry I can tell you that getting parts for this vehicle is a month long nightmare. On a up note I would love to see the El Camino from the same plant reintroduced ( my first real car was a pro-street Elky).
For the Ford side of my past I happen to love '69 Mach I's so the new Mustangs styling gets a thumbs up but being a father of 2 the Mustang is of no use. A comparison between Rousch and SRT would be worth writting about and maybe a good lead for you.
As far as mods to meet a SRT HP are a ducted cold air intake, srt-8 injectors, Superchips reflash on top of a stage 2 Jet chip (ran well at less than 85 degrees but it is denotating now because of 105 degree heat here in AZ but I am hoping that fattening up the mixture more or some 102 octane boost will cure it), and of course a free flow Flow master exhaust.
I ran against a SRT-8 300C and it was a dead heat and he had an exhaust upgrade. This was an over and over attempt and not a kid at a red light. I am not sure how the weights compare but it was definately a fun and earned a thumbs up from both of us. From a credibility stand point I have written published vehicle reviews and I have been building Magazine vehicles for over a decade and my main goal has always been to get the biggest bang for the buck to show up the rich guys. But now I could eat my words because the 6.1 2007 Super Bee has me drooling for more!
Now that I can finally afford a turn key muscle car I got a great car with my Daytona and in comparison to 30 other cars I have owned I haven't had to do much with it to really enjoy it. However if there is a tweek to be had that will fly under a manufactures radar I'll give it a try. Besides if I can take a bus and turn it into a bar for the Discovery Channel who am I to take a "no way" attitude for an anwser.
Hopefully someone out there will have the kahonas to try Comp Cam's 61 Hp gain cam on a Charger. From what most think it only works on non-4 cylinder shut down engine trucks. Given my experience with small block Chevy's I'd hope that it was not the case and according to the manufacture it only requires a programer to work. Fact Hot Rod Magazine had a dyno test with this cam kit and with a after market Mustang MSD ignition computer system (used to get a 6300 RPM redline) a crate 5.7 Hemi put out 481 HP with no other internal mods...
Can it be done... HELL YES! This is not the failed Mopar of the 90's this is the begining of a new era.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BadStratRT
i also had a rental charger, and i rent and test drive ALOT of cars, seeing as how i do new car reviews, and nothing that sidewayz said is untrue.
whether he has a mustang and GTO, or a handful of vipers, his comments werent unfounded. i have also had a rental charger, and it was a pig, but i didnt expect it to be fast. i would have liked, however, if it would have been comfortable. the seats were uncomfortable about an hour into my 5 hour drive, and i didnt like the fact that there was no where to rest my left arm (with which i drive). in my stratus, i can rest my arm on the window sill, or the door mounted arm rest, but in the charger, neither was comfortable.
as for the back seat, i was only back there for a bit, and i was facing down most of the time...so i didnt pay much attention to the comfort level...
quote:
Just to put my money where my mouth is I had one of the first 1985 Saleen Mustangs with a 4 barrel 302 and my 5.7L Daytona Charger would have kicked its butt and hauled 4 of my buddies at the same time
a 1985 saleen mustang is a pig..i would hope that a new charger would beat it...and why do you keep saying "daytona"? its 5 hp...RT would do. of the 128 saleen mustangs built in 1985, they were nothing but suspension and appearance packages, so in a straight line, its only good for high 14 seconds...saleen didnt start building the motors up until the late 80s 90s with the SSC.
quote:
Bring on the GTO especially the 350 HP one. The SRT-8 beat the car hands down C&D only chose it because it was CHEAPER...
im not sure what you mean here, as the stock srt8s (bone stock) are good for mid to low 13s...where as the M6 LS1 GTOs are high 13s, but your comparing a high end car to a mid level car...put the LS2 GTO in there, which sidewayz has, and the race with a bone stock srt-8 is over quickly, since his automatic GTO runs 12.80s...ive seen an srt-8 run that, but not stock.
2006 charger srt-8 msrp-35,320
2006 ls2 gto msrp-31900
3,400 more for the slower srt-8?
quote:
a Daytona with $1500 in mods would run the same numbers as the SRT-8 in the quarter and produce the same rear wheel HP.
on an engine dyno, with no load, people have gotten over 450 horsepower out of the 6.1L, but even going by the listed hp of 425, (which we all know is under rated) you need 75 horsepower out of a daytona to equal the listed horsepower. other than nitrous, what 1500 in mods are getting you 75 horsepower?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/18/2006 5:38:29 PM
|
|
|
BadStratRT
Posts: 20848
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
|
as much as i hate to argue with someone who is so traveled, i find it very hard to believe that those simple mods, especially the Jet chip...ive dealt with Jet products in a ram, and in a stratus, and they did literally nothing. i suppose that fattening up the mixture on the 5.7 and a good tune would make a difference, but to run heads up with an srt8 product...i would really have to see it with my own eyes...
do you plan on getting the charger to the track this season?
as for SRT versus the roush stage 3, im not mustang fan, but i think that i would have to give that one to the roush, for a few reasons...the 06 GT is tipping the scales at/around 3373-3425...there seems to be contrasting views on that...but even if you take the high end, say 3500lbs...compared to the 4100 of the charger. in crude track math, thats already a 6 tenths disadvantage with all other specs even. (which i know that they arent) while the roush is only 415/385...it has a manual trans, which will yield a greater percentage of gross to wheel horsepower, whereas the srt8 will burn more through the slushbox. granted, the srt8s are under-rated, but i cannot prove nor deny that the roush may also be posting short power numbers...but if you take them at published value...415 in the roush s3 compared to the 425 of the srt8..and by the time those numbers hit the ground, they will be equal due to the trans differences. also the srt8 has a 3.06 gearing, where the mustang GT is 3.11...i cannot find any documentation to state that the roush has a different gearing....so the mustang would have an advantage off the line due to that as well...
< Message edited by BadStratRT -- 5/18/2006 5:46:50 PM >
_____________________________
A True Dodge Enthusiast with a vehicle history to prove it.
Rules Number 3 and 7.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/18/2006 9:30:40 PM
|
|
|
74scamp
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/25/2006
From: Los Lunas, ,NM
Status: offline
|
Well, just to stir the pot a little more, given those HP numbers, the SRT makes more torque. If used right, that could, with a good driver, help equal out the gearing problems for the SRT over the Rousch at launch. So, the launch could be quite even. The additional torque could help over the distance, too, until the higher (assumed) HP of the SRT can be put down.
I would not now hesitate to put my modded R/T up against a stock SRT. I know a guy in town who has an SRT, and one of the days we will do it. Shoot, if I could stay within a door's length (and I think I can), I would be tickled pink. 
dave
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/19/2006 8:17:22 AM
|
|
|
BadStratRT
Posts: 20848
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
|
dont get me wrong...im not trying to talk up the roush, or talk down the srt's, or the RTs, but im just saying that on a stock basis, a mustang based car with equal to slightly less power, and a manual trans should be able to beat the heavier, slightly more powerful, and under geared LX car.
ive not driven a modded 5.7 hemi car, but i have driven a stock srt-8 300c on a closed circuit, and i was very impressed, and the stock 5.7 mag that i drove really felt nothing like the srt8 300...but i dont doubt that you can mod the 5.7 to equal to 6.1...its just that the simple mods listed dont seem like enough, imo, to equal the 6.1..
< Message edited by BadStratRT -- 5/19/2006 8:19:26 AM >
_____________________________
A True Dodge Enthusiast with a vehicle history to prove it.
Rules Number 3 and 7.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/19/2006 9:32:37 AM
|
|
|
74scamp
Posts: 1240
Joined: 1/25/2006
From: Los Lunas, ,NM
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BadStratRT
dont get me wrong...im not trying to talk up the roush, or talk down the srt's, or the RTs, but im just saying that on a stock basis, a mustang based car with equal to slightly less power, and a manual trans should be able to beat the heavier, slightly more powerful, and under geared LX car.
ive not driven a modded 5.7 hemi car, but i have driven a stock srt-8 300c on a closed circuit, and i was very impressed, and the stock 5.7 mag that i drove really felt nothing like the srt8 300...but i dont doubt that you can mod the 5.7 to equal to 6.1...its just that the simple mods listed dont seem like enough, imo, to equal the 6.1..
I understand what you're saying. I had good luck with the JET Stage 2 chip in my R/T, especially after putting the exhaust on (I already had the CAI on it). And I would agree that a stock GT Mustang with a standard transmission should take a stock R/T. However, the "published" times for these cars are so close, that the driver could make all the difference (Not me, though. I just like to have fun ). All I can tell ya is that, in my altitude, my R/T is very strong. Even the Mustang guys tell me that. Now, it could be that in better air, i.e., moiste, "heavy" air, that the differences are different. What I mean is that perhaps the mods I've put on mine, at this particular altitude, just allow my engine to breathe a certain percentage better between a modded and unmodded motor at lower altitudes. (Does any of this make sense?). What I'm trying to say is that perhaps, at my altitude and thin air, the engine is now able to take in and expell a larger percentage increase in volume, than the same mods would allow at a lower altitude. Perhaps at a lower altitude, there just isn't that much difference in the breathing characteristics between a modded and an unmodded motor. OK? Alright, I'm probably all wet with this, but just a thought.
dave
|
|
|
|
|
RE: mustang vs charger?? - 5/19/2006 10:41:44 AM
|
|
|
BadStratRT
Posts: 20848
Joined: 3/19/2004
Status: offline
|
according to a few sites the elevation of your listed home town is around 5354 ft...here are my thoughts, and frankly, they might be completely wrong...at that elevation, the air is "thinner" so by volume it has less oxygen per unit of air. i dont know the exact amounts, but say that your car is sitting at sea level, drawing in 800cfm, there is a given amount of actual oxygen entering the engine, but at 5300 feet above sea level, that amount would be significantly less. since oxygen is the key ingredient in the combustion process, 2 cars tuned the exact same way would show a big difference in how much power is produced. so, a stock engine is somewhat starved for oxygen at higher elevation, where the same car at sea level is probably at, or above the levels of oxygen needed for "ideal" combustion.
so anything that you could do to help get more air, thus more oxygen into the engine, at higher elevations, plus a tune to adjust for the thin air would make more of a difference, but that would go for any car...
well, not my stratus..its slow everywhere...
i had not originally considered the elevation...i have seen an 11 second saleen from denver running in pittsburgh, and it was running awful...i spoke to the guy, and he had intentionally not had the car re-tuned because he wanted to see if it actually made a difference...the car didnt even sound right.
but this is an awesome picture...
_____________________________
A True Dodge Enthusiast with a vehicle history to prove it.
Rules Number 3 and 7.
|
|
|
|
 Today's Posts
Most Active Topics
Make A Donation
Forum Rules & FAQ
RSS Feeds
SRT Forums
Race News
Dodge Prices
Dodge Trucks & SUVs
Ram  Dakota
Durango Nitro
Dodge Cars
Avenger Intrepid
Caliber Magnum
Challenger Neon
Charger Stealth
Daytona Stratus
Dodge Viper
Advertising Info
|
Contact Us |
Link To Us |
Sitemap |
Archive |
Advertising |
Automotive Directory |
About Us |
Dodge Links |
Legal |
Privacy Policy |
© Dodge Forum
Harley Davidson |
Ford Mustang Forums |
Dodge Challenger
Dodge Forum .com is not affiliated with or endorsed by Daimler Chrysler.
|
Printable Version
in this case the dead horse is a Mustang
