This charger is superior to all gas versions
>Faster
>Rumbles and makes V8 noises
>I literally bounce around from all the rumbling cause it rumbles more than the gas version
>Can be in and out of the charge station in 30 minutes and with my car at 80%
>Women think it's nice
>Women get even more excited when they hear its not polluting the earth

So why are you still latching onto the past? When are you going to join the grown ups in the future?

sage

>>28468190 (OP)
>Can be in and out of the charge station in 30 minutes and with my car at 80%
I can be in and out of the gas station in 5 minutes with the tank at 100%, and that tank will last me much longer than the shitty battery in your soulless electric transport pod.

>>28468200
Yet if we raced I bet I'd smoke you

>>28468190 (OP)
>superior to all gas versions
If that's the case, then why did they kill the off the entry level Charger Daytona R/T EV?

aka the car in your pic.

>>28468190 (OP)
wasn't it $80k and discontinued?
nice car for $30k in my humble opinion

sage

>>28468190 (OP)
They've sold less than 2,000 of these pieces of shit lmfao. They already cancelled the R/T EV and will likely also cancel the scatpack EV once the Hurricane twin turbo i6 comes out next year.

>>28468190 (OP)
fuck you and your mother

>>28468228
>nice car for $30k
They are, in fact, $30k. This dealership has 18 of these shitboxes all priced 50% off MSRP and they still aren't selling. I bet the sales manager is going to have a fucking aneurysm.

>>28468190 (OP)
it's "superior" (outside of range/refueling) in the way that a casio is "superior" to a rolex. Sure it's obviously better on paper, but jesus christ are you really going to sit there and say a casio makes you happier? Give me the feeling of an actual V8 over fake-ass noises any day.

>>28468224
>Likely
Do you know what this word means? Even if it is true it's because of boomers like you who won't embrace the future. I'll never forget when my teacher pumped exhaust into a container of bugs and they all died, the container became dirty. We are the bugs, the container is the earth and you are the exhaust killing us

>>28468190 (OP)
Can you mod the car to sound like this?
https://youtu.be/KZCUZqONxX4?si=G6EqcI7gaF3VQdWj

>>28468281
>For 2026, however, the Charger Daytona will only come in Scat Pack guise, with Dodge CEO Matt McAlear telling Car and Driver that "production of the Dodge Charger Daytona R/T is postponed for the 2026 model year"
It's killed. LMAO.

>>28468284
>Postponed
Do you know what this word means anon? And they are releasing the scat pack version which is electric if im not mistaken?

>>28468211
yeah batteries tend to do that when you overstress them. noxious stuff, really.

>>28468303
Electric is superior to gas

Who the fuck cares, where is the tt inline 6 and why does dodge continue to pussyfoot around it's production

>>28468306
>tt inline 6
Who the fuck cares? They're restarting Hemi production, when are they dropping one of those in this embarrassment?

>>28468190 (OP)
>so shitty it almost killed dodge

>>28468330
>Hemi
Who the fuck cares? When are they droppings a cummings in one?

>>28468333
not before i drop my cummings in youre mom

>>28468333
It's a muscle car, not a work truck.

>charge station
>30 minutes
>fake noises
>appeases treefucking hippies who don't shower or shave
NGMI

>>28468280
>>28468305
see my earlier point. "superior" for daily commuting and as an appliance? Sure. "superior" for the experience of driving? Nah, fuck that noise.

>>28468190 (OP)
The point of the noise and rumble is that it's the result of a big fucking gas engine producing lots of power, that's why people like it. Fake engine noises on an electric appliance is honestly the cringiest shit imaginable.

>>28468281
teacher fr made bugschwitz no cap straight gassed em

>>28468190 (OP)
Can you mod the car to sound like this?
https://youtu.be/aosdVaWNS00?si=N7X6XITZgtgPFkld

>>28468390
>bugschwitz
Take my (you), Anon

>makes v8 noises
zoz’d

>>28468190 (OP)
That's a whole lotta cope to be inferior to the shitty v6 faggot who posts his all the time.

>>28468247
>Hurricane twin turbo i6 comes out next year.
and the Hemi V8 version soon after, if the rumors are true.

>>28468484
How is it inferior? The electric charger is faster and more sexy

>>28468518
Goddams dude. If you want an electric car youre dumb af to buy one from stellantis. Literally the worst brand to buy from.
I mean maybe if you can pick it up for like $25k and your mom lets you charge it at her house then yeah it might make some economic sense...until it breaks. And it will. Because stellantis. And first/last generation.
Talk about not knowing who your fuckin market is. They really shit the bed on this one.

They get significantly less power from the 5.7 than ford gets from a 5.0. I dont give a fuck about dodge.

>>28468542
They are a great American brand. I knew a guy whose dodge went to a million miles

>>28468278
>price includes $12000 in tax credits
They should be fined for false advertising

>>28468545
That's impossible. 5.7 means it has more power

>>28468545
I'll take pushrod port injection over Chang's design anyday.

>>28468560
Why not both.

>>28468190 (OP)
>t. dealership owner desperate to move unsellable stock

>>28468595
I've seen these on the roads, they do sell, they woild sell better of boomers like you weren't so thick headed

>>28468545
>less power from the 5.7 than ford gets from a 5.0
As a consequence, the 5.0 has a significantly worse HP to torque ratio. The 5.0 also has worse hp:torque than the 6.4L Apache.

>>28468622
Dohc 4v dual vvt, worse torque, lmao
Coyote gen 3 has the same or better torque rating as a 5.7 and because it's fully modern it has a significantly better total torque curve. Even if they had the same peak HP rating the 5.0 would be the faster car

>>28468645
Yes, it has a worse HP:torque ratio. Did you really not know this?

>5.0 Coyote
>480 horsepower and 415 lb-ft of torque

>5.7L Hemi
>395 horsepower and 410 lb-ft of torque

>6.4L Apache
>485 horsepower and 475 lb-ft of torque

>>28468622
Your boat engine is trash

>>28468656
Kek. Stay btfo.

>>28468660
Isn't dodge struggling?

>>28468401
>becomes a paint shaker above 4,500rpm
>paint color is fat jackass

>>28468678
Yeah, literally BECAUSE they cancelled those Hemi V8's and tried to go full electric with the Charger. They fired the euro CEO and restarted Hemi V8 production and are massively reversing course.

The Charger and Challenger were significantly outselling the Mustang prior to that.

>>28468655
Fuck you're dumb.

>>28468692
U mad? Ya u mad.

>>28468190 (OP)
>Women get even more excited when they hear its not polluting the earth
oh yeah, wet drop like bombs when you start talking all green and sustainable. Start talking carbon neutrality to me, you sexy bitch.

>>28468548
damn! that's amazing!
Which electric motor and battery system did it have?

>>28468190 (OP)
dodge really dropped the ball on this one. an electric charger should have been a fairly easy win. It goes fast in a straight line and doesn’t need to be light or good at corners.

>>28468622
>>28468655
There isn't and never has been such a thing as a "hp:torque ratio"
Literally everyone in the world knows that a dohc engine will have higher peak hp at a higher rpm but less torque at lower rpms than an equivalent displacement ohv engine.

>>28468702
Dodge buyers are chuds. Why would you ever think an electric charger would be an "easy win".

>>28468604
>stop asking questions, JUST BUY, GOY

>>28468706
Fucking kek. You remind me of the JDM faggots squealing about the same thing.
>such a thing as a "hp:torque ratio"
This has been a thing for decades and decades, zoomlet.

>>28468716
It has? That's funny because when I try to google it, nothing comes up. Can you link me an article that explains it more in depth so I can understand it?

>>28468710
ford pulled off electrification successfully on the “mustang” mach e
I think dodge could have done it.

>>28468728
Historically, the buyer demographics of Ford is decidedly less chuddy and more female.

>>28468727
That's just the verbiage I'm using relating to the concept of looking at and comparing hp to torque. People have been doing this since time immemorial. And JDM queers are notorious for doing what you're doing. Seething about liters and torque. Eurokeks also do it too, as BMW/Mercedes etc. V8s have almost always been lower displacement.

>>28468743
Oh so what you're saying is "hp:torque ratio" is something you just made up a few minutes ago and actually isn't a real term at all.

>>28468190 (OP)
Gay and soulless car for bug people. No replacement for displacement. Will drive my 392 until engine failure and then it’s getting a new 392 crate engine. OP your car has zero drip and gets no bitches.

>>28468747
Lmao you asshurt retard. It's just a convenient way to refer to comparing hp and torque.

>>28468751
What am I supposed to be asshurt about? Was I the one who got called out for trying to make up new expressions and acting like they weren't just made up?

>>28468764
How autistic are you lmao

>>28468772
Does calling me autistic make you feel less embarrassed about being called out for your made-up terms earlier?

>>28468792
>reee I thought this was an industry term you lied to meeeeeee
Anon pls.

>>28468801
No one thought you were "lying". You tried passing off some made up BS like it was a fact and got called out on it and now you're trying to make a distraction to draw attention away from that because you're embarrassed.

>>28468831
>comparing hp and torque values is made up
Lol. You zoomlets are adorable.

>>28468842
No one said that. Of course that's not made up. Comparing power output and the ways in which different engines make power is obviously something people do. But there's no such thing as "hp:torque ratio"

>>28468750
>soulless car for bug people
on this we agree, thoughbeit
>parking so far from the pump
work on your depth perception
>not a hellcat
lmbo, worse than the gt250 poster
>get no bitches
imagine caring about the opining of w*men

i will not to return to read your dissenting opinion, just work on yourself and save a little longer, top trim ages better

>>28468858
>Comparing power output and the ways in which different engines make power
That's literally hp:torque ratio.
>NO BUT I DON'T LIKE THAT TERM
Lol

>>28468688
The challenger charger are also much slower than the mustang

>>28468750
I bet you're making minimum payments on that and rent

>>28468904
Yes they're slower, GT is 0-60 in 3.8s, Scat Pack is 4.2s. But the Challenger and Charger have actual back seats and a trunk. 3,800 lbs vs 4,300 lbs.

Mustang is a smaller pony car. Charger/Challenger are larger muscle cars.

>>28468330
Because if the base charger gets the hurricane 6, it'll btfo that pos 5.7 (reliability issues aside for both motors)

>>28468864
It's not a ratio. Comparing two things doesn't automatically make it a "ratio". I feel like you don't understand what that word means.

>>28468912
So dodge makes giant fat pieces of shits? How many times have you loaded up your back seat with people?

>>28468916
Ratio is relevant because it's relating the values of each to each other. Is the torque higher, lower or the same as HP? By what degree? ie. Ratio.

>>28468930
Most people have friends, family and aren't forever alone spergs.

>>28468905
What the fuck is a payment

>>28468949
So a car with 100hp and 100lbft is the same as a car with 500hp and 500lbft because they have the same ratio?

>>28469008
Nope.

>>28468952
Most people don't put their kids into a boat and drive it on the road. With that said you've probably never had/rarely have someone in the back

>>28469007
Oh did your dad buy the car?

>>28468858
Dude did you fail 4th grade math class or something? You can use ratios to describe anything. Like a cup of liquid with 1/3 water and 2/3 chicken stock is a ratio of 1:2 of water to stock. Shrimple.

>>28469027
>2022 Mustang sales: 47,566
>2022 Challenger sales: 55,245
>2022 Charger (it's a 4 door) sales: 80,365
So the Challenger and Charger outsold the Mustang. With the Charger, being the most practical, selling to most. And with the Challenger and Charger essentially being the same vehicle this is a total of 136k vehicles sold to the Mustang's 48k.

>Most people don't put their kids into a boat
Oh how wrong you are. The top selling vehicles are all fullsize pickup trucks. Then comes CUVs and SUVs. Kids are almost exclusively driven around in boats.

>>28469038
Actually I ain't finna cap i jumped into the convo without reading the full reply chain kek. Nvm, ignore.

>>28469045
You did not just admit the challenger is pig fat boat. Kek. Popular has nothing to do with being better btw

>>28469013
So then why does the ratio matter?

>>28469065
It reflects the characteristics and feel of the engine. For example, the aforementioned 5.7L and 6.4L will be torquey engines particularly the 5.7L. As it's torque is actually higher than it's HP. The 5.0 is not going to feel as torquey and will feel more rev happy.

>>28469057
It's a big car. Physics are real. You aren't getting interior room, full back seats and a large trunk without the vehicle also being large. Muscle cars have always been big. The 1964 Pontiac GTO was 203" long. That's longer than the current Charger and Challenger.

>>28469087
It's almost as if that's the inherent difference between dohc and ohv and everyone in the world already knows that?

>>28469104
Anon, this entire conversation started with you sperging out with me casually pointing out the differences. If you already knew why would you cry about the 5.7L's higher displacement?

>>28469090
It's still slow and dated. They need to upgrade the engine and lose the pig fat

>>28469130
>Slow
0-130 mph in 16.7 seconds and a 12.5s 1/4th mile is objectively fast.
>upgrade the engine
My guess is they probably will when they come back with the Hemi V8's.

>>28469030
Buddy I paid this bitch off within 90 days of getting it. Not everyone is a bitter poorfag.

>>28469109
No is or ever did "cry" about displacement. Quote any post I ever made where I ever even said anything about displacement.

>>28469185
>They get significantly less power from the 5.7 than ford gets from a 5.0
This is a reference to displacement.

>>28469196
And I said that?

>>28469213
Yes. See: >>28468545. Or you're a retard who jumped into a conversation not understanding the context.

Either way, you're a retard.

>>28469217
No I understood the context. The context was you trying to make up stupid terminology that didn't make any sense

>>28469235
>the word "ratio" confuses and upsets me
Ok retard.

>>28468278
They deserve it for what they did to the demon 170 and hellcats during covid. Remember the Demon 170 was a $96,666 (meme) car that sold for $180k on average just due to dealers. Hope that 90 grand in pure profit was worth an entire lot of unsellable cars for two years afterward.

>>28469236
It's not confusing to me. It's confusing to you because you don't understand how to use it correctly.

>>28469283
Son, I'm gonna confuse you bouncing deez nuts off your forehead.

>>28469137
Rt isn't pulling that bud

>>28469337
392.

>>28468190 (OP)
Stellantis' marketing team must be getting desperate to force-shill it here.
I have seen dozens of cybertrucks and electric hummers and not one of these fucking things on the street. Dealers literally can't give them away.
Fucking Ford was smart enough to avoid the pitfall Stellantis jumped right into. Nobody wants an electric muscle car. Full stop.

>>28469530
Plus the animosity they generated by cancelling the Challenger, cancelling the Hemi and replacing it entirely with a EV only Charger. Ford had the good sense to leave the Mustang alone and make the Mach-E a crossover.

>>28469530
Because boomers like you won't give it a chance. I'm yet to see a buyer regret buying one

>>28469511
Mustang GTD is faster. Than your boat

>>28469545
Demon 170 is faster. 1,025 hp. More horsepower than any mustang ever made, kiddo.

>>28469552
Not faster than the mustang GTD. Check nurburging

>>28468190 (OP)
>rumbles and makes v8 noises
i looked it up because of this thread and i genuinely cringed at it hahahaha

>>28468750
you are mexican

>>28469598
Yes. Remember how when you were like ten, the battery powered toy cars in the store would have a label on the box that said something along the lines of "Makes real engine noises!"
Well, Stellantis decided that was what the Dodge brand needed. Its literally a life-sized toy.

>>28468190 (OP)
>>Rumbles and makes V8 noises
If they got rid of this and just made it silent i'd buy it in a heartbeat. I want a roadtrip car that has a quiet cabin so i can enjoy my music, not hear my engine directly in my ears and wear out my ass and back from the rumbling

>>28469542
I'm also yet to see a buyer regret buying one, because I'm yet to see a buyer kek

>>28468190 (OP)
It's slow. The power is to carry it's own weight. The SXT is faster.

>>28469630
0 to 60 in 3.3 is not slow

>>28469593
Cope.

>>28469614
You can turn it off. Though I still wouldn't recommend one.

>>28469542
It doesn't deserve a chance. They fucked it up. It's a shit car. 11.7 is pathetic for a $80k EV "muscle car". A Model 3 performance does 10.9 for 50k
Imagine EVs didn't even exist and the newest top of the line Dodge muscle car was almost a whole second slower than a Corolla.

>>28469657
>You can turn it off.
The Charger EV is one of the few modern EV's with an actual power button. Everything is doing that whole always on whenever the key fob is close bullshit.

>>28469653
>It's faster!
No its not and I can prove it
>C-cope!
Ok retard

>>28469721
Because having the button is stupid. But Dodge is stupid like that. It's like in the 2000s when they stopped using physical keys... but you still had to put the fob in the ignition and turn it. Everyone else just jumped straight to push button start because it was better. Now you have EVs with no ignition so there's nothing to "start". What's the point of having a push button start? The dumbest part is you have to remember to "turn it off" when you leave. In a good EV you just get out and it turns off.

>>28469743
>In a good EV you just get out and it turns off.
Name one that actually does that and prove that it is acutally OFF when it's "off." Not just in stand by mode like cellphone.

>>28469711
But EVs are faster than gas cars. Imagine getting smokes in your v8 by a shitty tesla

>>28469754
No car is ever "off" unless it's dead. You can kill the engine but the battery is still connected and it still has accessories. The Charger doesn't "turn off" just because you push the button. It's still awake just like every other car and you can do shit to it through the phone app.

>>28469768
...do you think the new charger has a v8?

>>28469768
does it count when a tesla smokes itself?

>>28469730
Cope.

>>28469782
No I don't. EVs are faster in general though

>>28469790
Whats it like to have a slower track time than the mustang? Does it bother you that much?

>EV tranny noises
You will never be a real car.

>>28470287
But they are saving the planet. Can you say the same?

>>28470656
I don't care about the planet.

>>28470656
>all the batteries will end up abandoned on a coast in africa
that's literally worse than a bit of co2

>>28470796
The batteries will be recycled and reused.

>>28469217
Kek.

>>28469238
That profit didnt go to dodge it went right to the dealers and shit like that is why people insult dodge fanboys.
Cars are already purchased at whatever the price the dealer payed when they go on a lot for sale. Every dollar after that is dealer money. Car makers see none of it.

So yes people paying >100k for a demon are fucking idiots making the world worse.

>>28471037
I know it went to dealers but dealers are the only way to interface with the Dodge brand, so the onus is on them to bring the hammer down on that sort of thing. Or you wind up being in the spot their in: A crippled lineup with nobody willing to give them benefit of the doubt.

>>28468190 (OP)
They still can't sell this 6,000lb paperweight with electrical issues, lol.

>>28471050
You just mad you can't afford one

>>28471331
Anyone can.

>>28471543
Read the little print on the bottom. Also that would be a rental and not a purchase you planet killing SOB

>>28468190 (OP)
I don't care about any of that, it looks worse than the previous gen

>>28471662
>n-n-no that doesn't count because of this and that and the other thing!

>>28471669
I said you couldn't afford one. You then showed me an advertisement to rent one. Just admit you made a mistake instead of doubling down like a retard

>>28471666
It looks better and it is better. It's literally faster than the gas versions

>>28468305
Superior at being gay

>>28471682
Slower than a Hellcat Redeye lol, much less a Demon or 170

>>28471693
Will you say that about the scat pack version? Probably not

>>28471543
Yeah. It's lease, you fucking retard.

>>28471703
That was the Scat Pack version
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64075602/2024-dodge-charger-daytona-ev-test-results/

>>28468190 (OP)

>>28469614
Fuck off granny.

>>28471693
0.1s slower is hardly worth bragging about. Considering you're comparing an srt car to a regular trim

I’d love to have a muscle car, that would be cool. Would definitely want a V8, not an electric. But we get long nasty winters with lots of snow where I live, so they aren’t very practical.

>>28469154
how? you dont know what a payment i-

oh....oooooooh. you received that within 90 days...because it was received for 90s days worth of goods and services. in this case....services. hope you had some good kneepads.

>>28471543
LOL.

>>28468484
pentagod here
seethe harder negro

>>28469743
>But Dodge is stupid like that. It's like in the 2000s when they stopped using physical keys... but you still had to put the fob in the ignition and turn it.
this was a Mercedes thing thoughbeit

>>28473239
At least I didn't buy a V6 "sports" car. If there is an option for a V8, you get the V8, anything else is NPC behavior.

>>28473247
>jewish air quotes
>muh true scotsman

cry some more faggot
>speed density port injected timing chained egr-less minivan engine that screams to 6700 and makes 85% hp/l

vs

>slow faggot pushrod boomer engine with CYLINDER DEACTIVATION that farts to 4000 rpm and makes 69% hp/l


complete
pentastar
domination

>>28473264
85hp/l? That's cute
>In the 2GR-FSE, port injection is used considerably to achieve the correct mixture without having in-engine restrictions, meaning the engine achieves specific power near the top of all naturally aspirated production gasoline engines in the world (68 kW (92.5 PS; 91.2 hp)/L, 234 kW (318 PS; 314 hp) in the Mark X).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine

>>28468190 (OP)
If it's so great, where's yours?

>>28468211
only in a straight line. on a course where it actually matters those heavy batteries aint even beating a mildly tuned civic

>>28473330
>moving the goalpost to a japanese 3 cylinder most famous for randomly catching on fire and being denied warranty coverage

>>28473944
oh excuse me i got thrown off by the GR engine code
that is certainly impressive but let's look at all the engines that car is in:

>The 2GR-FSE was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines list for 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.[7][8][9][10]
You know why its awards stop at 2009? Because the Pentastar took its place.

Applications (calendar years):

2005–2013 Lexus IS 350 (GSE21/26, 310 PS (228 kW; 306 hp) and 375 N⋅m (38 kg⋅m; 277 lb⋅ft) @4800 RPM)
2013–2015 Lexus GS 350 (GRL10/15)
2013–2017 Lexus IS 350 (GSE31/36)
2013–2017 Lexus IS 300 AWD (GSE37, 255 hp (259 PS; 190 kW) and 320 N⋅m (33 kg⋅m; 236 lb⋅ft) at 2,000 - 4,800 RPM)
2014–2017 Lexus RC 350

i left out the JDM models btw since they are the same cars

now for benistar:
>3.0 L
2014–2022 Jeep Grand Cherokee (China, Russia)
2014–present Jeep Wrangler (China)
2014–2023 Chrysler 300C (China)
>3.2 L
2014–2022 Jeep Cherokee
>3.6 L
2011–2017 Chrysler 200
2011–2016 Chrysler Town & Country
2011–2014 Dodge Avenger
2011–2023 Dodge Challenger
2011–2023 Dodge Charger
2011–present Dodge Durango
2011–2020 Dodge Grand Caravan
2011–2019 Dodge Journey
2011-present Jeep Grand Cherokee
2011–2014 Volkswagen Routan
2011–2023 Chrysler 300
2012–2018 Jeep Wrangler JK
2019-present Jeep Wrangler JL
2020-present Jeep Gladiator JT
2011–2015 Ram Cargo Van
2012–2015 Lancia Voyager
2012–2014 Lancia Thema
2012–2015 Fiat Freemont
2012–present Ram 1500
2013–2021 Ram ProMaster
2014–2017 Chrysler 200
2017–present Chrysler Pacifica
2020–present Chrysler Voyager


complete
global
saturation

>>28473952
>look at all the engines that car is in:
lel
all the cars that engine is in

>>28470664
then....get an ev. lithium mines are fucking crazy, look up how gnarly the acid rain is around those places

I will say, the front spoiler think is kinda clever.
it's a nice way to keep the square front end appearance while having a curved aerodynamic hood.

no clue if it's worthwhile though

>>28473264
based

>>28474043
If it's anything like a rear wing, it does the same thing. I do wonder if it's a good idea to have the opening sealed at both sides like it is. It's going to create flow separation the faster it tries to take a corner, but I guess the desired effect is that it will slow the car down while it steers? (that, or just point the car right back out of the corner)

so i can get this 60k mrsp car for 30k, and itll make everyone mad, and ill still beat the ICE car next to me that races to the red light and comes to a complete stop, while i, in my slow ass muscle car ev, will slow down to 15 mph and wait for it to turn green before blasting through it at 45 mph, passing the ICE car that raced to the red and came to a complete stop?

honestly i dont care about engine types or whatever, its just fun to blast past those guys who race to reds

>>28474192
lmao what is this utterly incoherent chatgpt post? did you have a stroke or something? the fuck are you talking about?
the r-wing is a design element from the '99 charger concept car. it basically just reduces frontal drag. i think the original idea here was to use it as a venturi tunnel heat extractor, similar to the way the hood scoops are used on a charger or chally but probably more efficient than just a hole in the hood. on the electric car it just looks cool.

>>28474214
I'm talking aerodynamics, my room temperature IQ friend. I don't use AI bullshit to speak for me.

Wing design is important. Downforce is always welcome, but depending on how the wing redirects air across the frontal area of the car, any number of things can happen, besides just an increase in downforce. That's what interests me. As the yaw of your car changes during a corner, the shape of its wake changes, and incoming air pressure changes its angle as well. Turning can increase front lift, canceling much of the downforce, and it was an issue on the original Chargers trying to turn at speeds in excess of 120mph to have the front end so squared off at the edges with an open air dam going the entire width of the car. With the new design, all the air travels back up over the hood, since most of the air pressure exits underneath the R-wing, but another issue with the full width grille was high pressure air hitting the sides of the opening and pointing the car straight again, which this doesn't seem to address. I wonder if the cornering lift issue is still present in some form since the opening is largely the same shape.

The 1999 Charger Concept doesn't have quite same front end, even if the principle is the same. For one, air goes directly over the headlights and around the car, instead of there being a vertical bar over them like the new one where the air can trap.

>>28468190 (OP)
you will never be a woman, you mentally ill EV troon

>>28468190 (OP)
>>Women get even more excited when they hear its not polluting the earth
Women aren't a monolith

>>28468281
based, drop dead you fucking /n/egroid hippy faggot

>>28468750
>all those seethe replies
absolutely based

>>28474245
>but another issue with the full width grille was high pressure air hitting the sides of the opening and pointing the car straight again,
dude what
the whole cars' body doesn't yaw that much when it steers, it's not a plane. even in nascar they don't yaw that much in a straight line. also what you said doesn't make much sense. the air catches the edges of the grille opening on a '69 charger or '70 chally whatever and "pulls the car straight"??? wouldn't such an opening, when facing the wind at an angle, create more drag and pull the nose away from the direction of travel?

> For one, air goes directly over the headlights and around the car,

it goes into the grille and out the vent in the hood after flowing over the radiator which appears to be canted back a bit like you might see in a corvette or viper. you can clearly see the light from the sun on the bars of the grille shining through the r-wing opening. it's probably less about downforce and more about promoting laminar flow over the hood and reducing the effect of the car's frontal area, iirc the '99 charger was supposed to be hydrogen powered so its design does have some more fuel efficient considerations than you'd normally expect of dodge. i don't think the r-wing is intended to produce downforce by itself but rather encourage the whole car to be more winglike in cross section and create downforce with the body.

>>28471685
boom, roasted.

>>28474264
>dude what
>the whole cars' body doesn't yaw that much when it steers, it's not a plane
When you turn, the angle that the car is pointing is different from where it started. Specifically the yaw angle. That's why I said the yaw changes. The car rotates.

Yaw is just horizontal rotation.

>wouldn't such an opening, when facing the wind at an angle, create more drag and pull the nose away from the direction of travel?
Yes and I'd argue this is just as much lift as it is drag? We technically have perpendicular force pulling away from the corner (it's just inverted), but there is also drag pushing against the surface; creating that inversion of air. I'd say lift because of the end result, drag because of how it starts. Technically it's not making the car slower, just straighter... Whatever.

Part of the reason I say this is because the 2025 grille is at the very top of the front fascia and doesn't reduce the frontal area as much. On the 1999 model, the hood starts underneath the headlights which is considerably lower

>it goes into the grille and out the vent in the hood
Well, on the 1999 car the air won't get stuck in the upper sides front fascia while it turns, it just smoothly flows over the headlights, or goes up the middle. On the new car, there is a flat, sealed wall on each side of the front fascia that slowly goes up into the hood. I was hypothesizing that air may trap there as the car steers, since that area is much wider.

>>28474340
>When you turn, the angle that the car is pointing is different from where it started
but it doesn't go perpendicular to the flow of air at all until you start to oversteer and slide, because it's steered by the front wheels which point the front end in the direction of travel.. nothing you're saying makes any physical sense in normal driving conditions. you're thinking about things that would only be a concern at like 180mph.
>Well, on the 1999 car the air won't get stuck in the upper sides front fascia while it turns
you actually WANT air to get trapped in places like that because it creates a pressure layer that allows the rest of the air mass to flow smoothly around the part. it's why on pickup trucks they technically get better gas mileage with a closed tailgate because air gets trapped in the bed and aerodynamically acts the same way a tonneau cover would.

>>28474349
I'm making no sense, yet you continue to understand exactly what I'm saying.

You're such a piece of shit.

>>28474353
what you're saying about the turbine style grilles of the older cars "catching air" in cornering doesn't make physical sense, no. its still cogent english mostly i just think you are misinterpreting physics a bit.

the reason those cars have that big wide grille is because originally what ended up as the b-body charger was doing to be the production turbine car, the big wide grille IS for catching air and feeding it to a jet engine. what it does in cornering was probably not ever a concern.

>>28469743
Why are you arguing for a piece of power equipment with no off switch? Do you want it to switch itself off in stop and go traffic? Or when you leave it in a hot parking lot? Or perhaps someone who doesn’t know how it works needs to use it in an emergency? They just need to keep everything standard, not modernize everything. The cybertruck is why you don’t modernize everything on a car. It probably needs a cellphone app and to steal all your info to work, and it’s spying on you.

>>28474361
You're just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Instead of looking at thing and analyzing it for what it is, you're having to create these crazy fantastic hypotheticals.
>Do you want it to switch itself off in stop and go traffic?
>Or when you leave it in a hot parking lot?
I mean this is chatgpt level ignorance. The whole point being made is that it DOESN'T turn off. The questions don't make any sense.

>>28468190 (OP)
What zionist kike filth was responsible for designing this, gotta be an AI design.

>>28474488
fuck off chaim you have iranians to bomb

>>28474488
It's really not that bad, it's just not as good as the old one. If we lived in a world where the Challenger didn't come back in 2008 and this dropped on the scene in a world full of Model Ys and C-HRs then this would be a godsend.

>>28469538
Don't forget the Chrysler 300

>>28471669
>>28471543
Kinda tempted if the prices get low enough to try one out

>>28474558
if it was a gas car i don't think it would have gotten as strong of negative reactions.
kinda wonder if they could drop the bodywork on a conventional powertrain.

>>28469593
>slower time to climb than a cessna 172
Dog shit slow car with pitiful power to weight

>>28471543
huh. i do about 6500 miles a year...i could totally be driving this for just 1200 bucks a year? 456 horsepower, 496 temporarily with the weird boost mode? i pretty much just drive 11 miles back and fourth to work. im gonna have to look into this lol, so i can just fake out people at red lights, "pedal to the metal" it on the 3-4 little short straight aways, while wearing my work uniform which is basically, imagine, something from fred meyer or walmart? it would double my car expenses, but...lol, my car expenses are already super low, this wouldnt really eat into my paycheck that much.

jesus this is kinda sorta really tempting if theres a deal like this around near me. put some rage inducing stickers in the rear window, yadda yadda...

>>28476197
It's $4000 cash down as well. So in total after cash down, fees etc. It's effectively $300/mo for 24 months. So $7,200 total to fuck around with it for 2 years.

we need a whitegoods and appliances board for evtrannies

>>28468190 (OP)
>This charger is superior to all gas versions
I didn’t know that gas Chargers had issues with unintended acceleration, since the electric ones sure do.

Though with the very tentative potential exception of the Ramcharger, my official policy towards Mopars is “no Hemi, no buy”. The only reason to put up with Mopar “quality” in a vehicle is if it can put a shit-eating grin on your face while driving it around, and a $60k EV with subpar range and build quality ain’t it.

>>28476200
ah dang, never mind. thats too much to throw at a dumb larp, but it would of been funny. lean out the window and make vroom vroom noises, or play sound effects from mario kart on the sound system. 2400 bucks did seem absurdly low for it, even if its selling like dog shit.

>>28476059
GTD is not slow. Stop it

>>28476459
If you raced me for pink slips I'd win. EV is faster

>>28477463
That's why you negotiate. If you suck off the dealer you can knock 2k off the down-payment. Gotta feel around and find out which salesman is gay

>>28477742
oh, is that a requirement? they need to actually be gay?

>>28477747
Only fags let men suck their dick

>>28477756
it's only gay if the balls are touching

>>28477757
No its gay no matter what

>>28469337
>R/T
Seen them lose to 2Vs.
>>28469511
Slower than a 4V with a few simple mods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeutgb3CiQI
>>28469552
>demon 170
Slower than GT500 with a few simple mods.
https://youtu.be/jrEbcOiAAEc?t=27
Either way, the electric abomination in the OP is gay af and that thing needs to get the Hurricane and Hemi back ASAP.

>>28477786

>>28468190 (OP)
>Women
opinion discarded

>>28477834
Sorry im not a fag

>>28478005
we can fix that

>>28478031
You gonna build a time machine and molest me as a child?

>>28469104
The differences are purely in camshaft and crank design.
Theres no reason why you couldnt configure a dohc engine to produce gobs of torque low in the rev range.

>>28478408
sure i guess it's purely coincidental that literally every dogc engine ever made has less relative torque and a higher rpm

>>28478420
4v per cylinder engines will flow more air, theyre simply taking full advantage of this with this design.
Several heavy duty diesel engines though are 4 valve per cylinder and obviously they are making monstrous torque from 1500-2500 rpm.

>>28478035
no we're just gonna have you grow up normally

>>28478430
if you thought the point you were making was valid then you wouldn't need to use valve count and diesel as a distraction

>>28478444
Its not a distraction, its an illustration of my point.
Dohc is almost always 4v, and almost always revs high.
But there are examples that dont.

Not everything is a win/lose confrontation friend.

>>28478461
>the configuration of the engine has nothing to do with revs or torque
>revs and torque come from... the way the engine is configured

>>28478485
>the dohc is always high revving
>except when they dont
>the dohc makes no bottom end power
>except when they do

Is this hard for you to understand or are you simply pretending to be retarded?

>>28478491
no one ever said a dohc can literally never be a torquey low revving engine. but a dohc will always rev higher and have less torque than a ohv engine

>>28468190 (OP)
Ugly and monstrously huge. Also clearly not selling well because I've only seen two in person.

>>28468190 (OP)
Fuck you they killed the challenger for this.

>>28468278
How is listing this Legal?
They are even including employee discounts

>>28478443
There's a 99% chance I wouldn't be a fag then

>>28478508
Bigger is better. It means I cross the finish line sooner

>>28479219
Challenger was a planet killing boat

>>28479718
it was a planet mapping boat retard

>>28479735
You're telling me the 2025 charger killed off the 1872 boat?

>>28479779
how the fuck did you think we won north america back from the azteca-inuit voodoo hegemony after the finno-korean hyperwar
learn history retard

>>28479792
Did they run the Indians over?

>>28479832
no we sold them dodge journeys at 38% apr for 96 months

>>28479838
They never stood a chance

>>28477794
>bro the 500 is totally faster
>WITH FULL BOLT ONS AND E85
>ROLL RACING
Cmon man take the L

>>28468190 (OP)
These posts must be made by some kind of jewish EV glownigger ceo or something. sus

>makes fake engine noises
just like your "wife" fakes her orgasms when you fuck her with your limp little cock, before heading into your "job" at mcdonalds during which the real BVLL pulls up in his real car and blows her back to smithereens

>>28481577
Atleast I have a wife and a job

>>28468211
You're going to get arrested for reckless driving and have your toy taken away. Public roads aren't for racing.

>>28481815
Bootlicker. The cops wouldn't be able to catch such a fast vehicle anyway

>>28473952
>i left out the JDM models btw since they are the same car
But didn't do the same for the EDM Lancia and Fiats? Curious. Here are other variants of the 2GR and what they were in.

2005 Toyota Crown Athlete (GRS184, 315 PS (232 kW; 311 hp) and 38.4 kg⋅m (377 N⋅m; 278 lb⋅ft) at 4,800 RPM)
2005 Lexus GS 350 (GRS191/196)
2005 Lexus GS 450h (GWS191)
2005–2013 Lexus IS 350 (GSE21/26, 310 PS (228 kW; 306 hp) and 375 N⋅m (38 kg⋅m; 277 lb⋅ft) @4800 RPM)
2008 Toyota Crown Athlete (GRS204)
2008 Toyota Crown Hybrid (GWS204)
2009 Toyota Mark X (GRX133, 318 PS (234 kW; 314 hp) and 38.7 kg⋅m (380 N⋅m; 280 lb⋅ft) at 4,800 RPM)
2013–2015 Lexus GS 350 (GRL10/15)
2013–2017 Lexus IS 350 (GSE31/36)
2013–2017 Lexus IS 300 AWD (GSE37, 255 hp (259 PS; 190 kW) and 320 N⋅m (33 kg⋅m; 236 lb⋅ft) at 2,000 - 4,800 RPM)
2014–2017 Lexus RC 350
2015 Toyota Mark X GRMN (236 kW (321 PS; 316 hp) and 380 N⋅m (39 kg⋅m; 280 lb⋅ft) at 4,800 RPM)
Supercharged:

2009 Toyota Mark X +M Supercharger (265 kW (360 PS; 355 hp))[11]

>>28473944
>>28473952
2005–2012 Toyota Avalon (GSX30)
2012–2018 Toyota Avalon (GSX40)
2006–2012 Toyota Aurion (GSV40)
2012–2017 Toyota Aurion (GSV50)
2005–2012 Toyota RAV4/Vanguard (GSA33/38)
2006–2019 Toyota Estima/Previa/Tarago (GSR50/55)
2006–2011 Toyota Camry (GSV40)
2011–2017 Toyota Camry (GSV50)
2006–2012 Lexus ES 350 (GSV40)
2012–2018 Lexus ES 350 (GSV60)
2007–2009 Lexus RX 350/Toyota Harrier (GSU30/31/35/36)
2009–2015 Lexus RX 350 (GGL10/15/16)
2007–2016 Toyota Highlander/Kluger (GSU40/45/50/55)
2007–2012 Toyota Blade Master (GRE156)
2007–2013 Toyota Mark X Zio (GGA10)
2008–2015 Toyota Alphard/Vellfire (GGH20/25)
2015–2017 Toyota Alphard/Vellfire (GGH30/35)
2008–2016 Toyota Venza (GGV10/15)
2020–2023 Lexus LM 350 (Hong Kong only)[5]
2009–2021 Lotus Evora (280 PS (206 kW; 276 hp) & 350 N⋅m (258 lb⋅ft) using Lotus engine management, Sport Pack package redline increased to 7000 rpm)
2007–2016 Toyota Sienna (GSL20/23/25/30/33/35)
2009–present Bolwell Nagari 300
Toyota Corolla (E140/E150) (for Super GT use)
Lotus Evora GTE (modified 4 litre version with 470 hp (477 PS; 350 kW) NA for race use in the ALMS and at the 24 Hours of Le Mans)
Supercharged (calendar years):

2007–2009 TRD Aurion (TRD supercharger)
2009–present Bolwell Nagari 300 (Sprintex supercharger)
2011–2016 Lotus Evora S (345 hp (350 PS; 257 kW), 295 lb⋅ft (400 N⋅m))
2012–2021 Lotus Exige S/350/360/380/410/430 (345–430 hp (350–436 PS; 257–321 kW), 295–325 lb⋅ft (400–441 N⋅m))
2017–2021 Lotus Evora 400 (400 hp (406 PS; 298 kW), 410 hp (416 PS; 306 kW), 430 hp (436 PS; 321 kW))
2022–present Lotus Emira[6]

>>28473952
2GR-FKS
2015–2023 Toyota Tacoma (GRN305/310/325/330)[16] 278 hp (207 kW; 282 PS)
2015–2020 Lexus GS 350 (GRL12/16)[17] 311 hp (315 PS; 232 kW)
2015–2022 Lexus RX 350 (GGL20/25)[18] 295 hp (220 kW; 299 PS)
2017–present Lexus LS 350 (GSF50) 318 PS (234 kW; 314 hp) (China)
2017–2019 Toyota Highlander (GSU50/55) 295 hp (220 kW; 299 PS)
2017–2020 Toyota Sienna (GSL30/33/35) 296 hp (221 kW; 300 PS)
2017–2024 Toyota Camry (GSV70) 301 hp (224 kW; 305 PS)
2018–2023 Toyota Alphard (GGH30) 296 hp (221 kW; 300 PS)
2018–2022 Toyota Avalon (GSX50) 301 hp (224 kW; 305 PS)
2018–present Lexus IS 350 (XE30) 311 hp (232 kW; 315 PS)
2018–present Lexus ES 350 (XZ10) 302 hp (225 kW; 306 PS)
2018–2025 Lexus RC 350 311 hp (232 kW; 315 PS)
2019–2022 Toyota Highlander (GSU70/75) 295 hp (220 kW; 299 PS)
2020–2023 Lexus LM 350[19] (AH30) 296 hp (221 kW; 300 PS)


2GR-FXS
edit
The 2GR-FXS is the hybrid version of the 2GR-FKS.

Applications (calendar years; net combined horsepower listed):

2015–2022 Lexus RX 450h (GYL20/25)[18] 308 hp (230 kW; 312 PS)
2016–2019 Toyota Highlander (GVU58) 306 hp (228 kW; 310 PS)
2023–present Lexus TX 550h+ (GYU15) 404 hp (301 kW; 410 PS) plug-in hybrid[20]
2023–present Toyota Century (SUV) (GRG75) 406 hp (303 kW; 412 PS) plug-in hybrid

>>28469743
>The dumbest part is you have to remember to "turn it off" when you leave. In a good EV you just get out and it turns off.
Terrible design. Just because you get out of your car doesn't mean you want it off in all cases.

>>28482262
"off" is contextual. I specified in a later post that its never truly "off". I would imagine that if you got out of a Hyundai or Charger that it would also turn itself off after some period of time even if you didn't push the button.
Whatever scenarios you could imagine that you would want to leave your EV "running" when you weren't in it; there's a solution. The "on" button is just pointless. It's for boomers who are afraid of technology and don't like change and think "old car had button new car needs button too". It's just as dumb as these EVs with fake engine noise and fake gear changes.

>>28468224
>>28468190 (OP)
Step aside for new challenger

>>28482284