| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
10-12-2008, 01:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
mustang vs challenger cool vid
|
|
#2
10-12-2008, 01:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would take the supersnake..
Too bad the driver couldn't be someone more qualified. Kennebell put em' over the top. Curious what an equally modified 03/04 SVT Cobra would do in the same test against the same cars. 
__________________
Scott  68' Mustang 03' SVT Cobra 65' Oldsmobile F-85
|
|
#3
10-12-2008, 05:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Great vid!! The Challenger was hurt by A/T and to small tires, the Mustang by braking but a close race!
__________________
70 Mustang Boss 302 Real "G" 69 Mustang Fastback Pro Touring 552 ci, TKO 600 92 Lexus SC400 222K mi. and going strong!!! 92 Lexus SC300
|
|
#5
10-12-2008, 02:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Its funny that all the cool cars that everyone want,are remakes of the musclecars of the late 60's early 70's.Love them both,but they both need to go on a diet,and the Challenger definitely needs a stick.Nice to see production musclecars again though.Ron
|
|
#6
10-13-2008, 06:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pretty much went how I expected. Both of em need to go on a diet. Would like to see the same test with more consumer factory cars - a GT and an RT or something like that, but these two were probably more matched. Good brakes and good tires would have really shown what all that performance is capable of though. If the Challenger proportions were more like long, low, wide instead of short, fat and square, and it weighed about 500 lbs less (or more) it would be getting my vote. 30+/- grand cheaper with fewer inches, and better looking, the Snake gets my vote without track time.
|
|
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
