- Now that we've had the chance to test Dodge's new two-door Charger Sixpack, we wanted to see how it compares with the old Challenger R/T Scat Pack.
- In our testing, the V-8 Challenger had more grip and stopped from 70 mph in a shorter distance, though the six-cylinder Charger was quicker to 60 mph.
- In addition to having a heavier curb weight, the new gas-fed Charger currently can't be optioned with summer tires, putting it on a serious back foot.
Welcome to Car and Driver's Testing Hub, where we zoom in on the test numbers. We've been pushing vehicles to their limits since 1956 to provide objective data to bolster our subjective impressions (you can see how we test here).
The Challenger left Dodge's lineup after the 2023 model year, but like a melodramatic 20-something experiencing heartbreak, we see it everywhere we look. That's especially true when we see the two-door, Sixpack-equipped 2026 Dodge Charger Scat Pack Plus parked in our driveway. Since we were already thinking about the Challenger, we figured it was the right time to compare the new model's test results with the figures we recorded for the 2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody way back in 2018.
For Sale Near You
See all results for used 2019 Challenger SRT / SRT Hellcat for sale near 20147
A lot has changed since then, namely that Dodge's muscle cars no longer offer a V-8. The Scat Pack version of the new gas-fed Charger that we tested features a 550-hp twin-turbo 3.0-liter straight-six (dubbed the Hurricane). Meanwhile, the old Challenger we tested was powered by a 485-hp naturally aspirated 6.4-liter V-8 (a.k.a. the famous 392 Hemi).
It's never great when a new model performs worse than its predecessor. Unfortunately, that's the case with the Charger Sixpack and the defunct Challenger—at least in some key performance metrics. The Charger performed worse than the Challenger on our skidpad, posting just 0.90 g compared with the Challenger's 0.96 result. It's the same story when it comes to braking. A hard stomp on the Challenger's left pedal from 70 mph required 148 feet to bring the car to a standstill, while the same action in the Sixpack took 177 feet.
Digging into the details, it quickly becomes clear why the old model performed better in both tests. Currently, Dodge doesn't offer the Charger Sixpack with summer tires, which, oddly, are available on the Charger Daytona EV. However, a Dodge spokesperson told Car and Driver that the stickier tires will be available on the gas-fed model later this year. Still, that didn't change our test results for the time being. Along with the tire disadvantage, the Charger packed on more pounds for its latest generation. The Sixpack Scat Pack we tested weighed 4889 pounds, whereas the Challenger R/T Scat Pack tipped our scales at 4352 pounds. Pair the Charger's 537-pound weight penalty with its all-season tires, and the test results speak for themselves.
But in the world of muscle cars, it's often straight-line speed that takes precedence, so let's get into acceleration. Despite being considerably heavier, the Charger Sixpack reached 60 mph in 3.7 seconds, two-tenths ahead of the V-8 Challenger. And the Hurricane-powered Charger reached 100 mph 8.8 seconds, a good amount ahead of the Hemi-equipped Challenger's 9.3-second run.
The new twin-turbo Charger was also quicker in the quarter-mile (12.1 seconds at 116 mph), with the Challenger doing the deed in 12.4 seconds at 114 mph. Sure, the Charger recorded a more impressive launch, but the Challenger's hefty Hemi V-8 was the more responsive engine. We measured a 5-to-60-mph time of 4.2 seconds in the Challenger versus 4.8 seconds in the Charger.
The debate about what defines a muscle car has been raging since the segment originated. Your definition will surely be different than your neighbor Fred's, and his will be different than ours. That said, pretty much every muscle car possesses impressive straight-line speed, and while it may not have the proper number of cylinders, at least the new two-door Charger Sixpack Scat Pack accelerates quicker than an equivalent V-8 predecessor.
➡️ Skip the lot. Let Car and Driver help you find your next car.
Jack Fitzgerald’s love for cars stems from his as yet unshakable addiction to Formula 1.
After a brief stint as a detailer for a local dealership group in college, he knew he needed a more permanent way to drive all the new cars he couldn’t afford and decided to pursue a career in auto writing. By hounding his college professors at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, he was able to travel Wisconsin seeking out stories in the auto world before landing his dream job at Car and Driver. His new goal is to delay the inevitable demise of his 2010 Volkswagen Golf.
Facts Only
Dodge's new two-door Charger Sixpack features a twin-turbo 3.0-liter straight-six engine producing 550 hp.
The 2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody was powered by a naturally aspirated 6.4-liter V-8 engine producing 485 hp.
The Charger Sixpack accelerated to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds, compared to the Challenger's 3.9 seconds.
The Charger completed the quarter-mile in 12.1 seconds at 116 mph, while the Challenger took 12.4 seconds at 114 mph.
The Challenger achieved 0.96 g on the skidpad, outperforming the Charger's 0.90 g.
The Challenger stopped from 70 mph in 148 feet, while the Charger required 177 feet.
The Charger Sixpack weighed 4,889 pounds, 537 pounds more than the Challenger's 4,352 pounds.
The Charger was tested with all-season tires, while summer tires were not yet available for the gas-fed model.
Summer tires are available on the Charger Daytona EV and will be offered for the gas-fed Charger later in 2024.
The Challenger R/T Scat Pack was discontinued after the 2023 model year.
The Charger's 5-to-60-mph time was 4.8 seconds, slower than the Challenger's 4.2 seconds.
The Charger reached 100 mph in 8.8 seconds, compared to the Challenger's 9.3 seconds.
Executive Summary
Dodge's new two-door Charger Sixpack, powered by a twin-turbo 3.0-liter straight-six engine (550 hp), was compared to the 2019 Challenger R/T Scat Pack Widebody, which featured a naturally aspirated 6.4-liter V-8 (485 hp). Testing revealed mixed results: the Charger accelerated faster to 60 mph (3.7 seconds vs. 3.9 seconds) and performed better in the quarter-mile (12.1 seconds at 116 mph vs. 12.4 seconds at 114 mph). However, the Challenger outperformed the Charger in grip (0.96 g vs. 0.90 g on the skidpad) and braking (148 feet vs. 177 feet from 70 mph). The Charger's disadvantages included a 537-pound weight penalty and the lack of summer tires, which are available on the Charger Daytona EV but not yet on the gas-fed model. Dodge plans to offer summer tires for the Charger Sixpack later in 2024. The debate over what defines a muscle car continues, with straight-line speed being a key factor, though the Charger's six-cylinder engine challenges traditional expectations.
The comparison highlights the trade-offs between the new turbocharged engine and the classic V-8, with the Charger excelling in acceleration but lagging in handling and braking. The weight difference and tire limitations significantly impacted the Charger's performance in non-straight-line metrics. While the Charger's faster acceleration aligns with muscle car priorities, its handling and braking shortcomings may disappoint enthusiasts who value overall performance.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative acknowledges the Charger Sixpack's impressive straight-line performance while honestly addressing its handling and braking shortcomings. The comparison is framed as a generational shift—turbocharged efficiency versus naturally aspirated tradition—rather than a simple "better or worse" judgment. The article gives credit where due: the Charger's acceleration is objectively quicker, but it doesn't shy away from the weight and tire disadvantages that explain its weaker grip and braking. This balanced approach avoids the trap of blind nostalgia or uncritical hype, instead presenting the data as a starting point for discussion.
Patterns detected: none. The analysis avoids emotional exploitation, distortion, or bad faith tactics. It doesn’t force a binary choice between the two cars or resort to strawmanning either side of the muscle car debate. The focus remains on measurable performance metrics, and the acknowledgment of the Charger's future tire upgrade prevents a misleading snapshot judgment.
The root cause here is the tension between tradition and innovation in the muscle car segment. The Challenger's V-8 represents a dying breed, while the Charger's turbocharged six-cylinder signals a shift toward efficiency and forced induction. The unstated assumption is that straight-line speed is the defining characteristic of a muscle car, but the article subtly questions this by highlighting the Challenger's superior handling and braking—qualities that might matter more to enthusiasts than raw acceleration.
The implications for human agency are mixed. Consumers gain a faster, more technologically advanced option in the Charger, but they lose the visceral, naturally aspirated experience of the V-8. The weight gain and tire limitations suggest cost-cutting or engineering trade-offs that could frustrate purists. Second-order consequences might include a broader industry shift away from V-8s, altering the sound, feel, and culture of muscle cars.
Bridge questions: How much does the "muscle car" label depend on engine configuration versus performance? Would the Charger's handling and braking improve enough with summer tires to change the comparison? What other trade-offs (e.g., reliability, fuel economy) might influence buyer preferences beyond these test metrics?
Counterstrike scan: If this were part of a coordinated campaign, the playbook might involve downplaying the Charger's weaknesses to push a narrative of progress, or conversely, exaggerating its flaws to stoke nostalgia for V-8s. However, the actual content doesn’t match this pattern. It presents both strengths and weaknesses transparently, with no signs of manipulation or undue influence. The analysis remains grounded in data, not rhetoric.
Sentinel — Human
The provided text appears likely to be human-written due to idiosyncratic emphasis and personal voice, along with variable sentence length. However, the analysis remains uncertain.