Am I the only one who likes the new Challenger?

How does the corvette, miata, honda civic, etc. etc. get away with their low noses then?

I agree though it probably has something to do with legislation. Or perhaps with trying to run 11tybillion inch rims and still running strut front suspensions.

The new Miata and Civic are both much more upright then older ones but their styling is less boxy so it looks lower I think.

nocones wrote: Length 191.3 : 197.7 Diff 6.4" Width 76.1 : 75.7 Diff -.4" Height 50.6 : 57 Diff 6.4" OMG it's so much Bigger and So MUCH heavier!! I would like to of seen the nose be a little lower more like the original. Same thing with the camaro. They have very upright front ends, and high hoods.

Agreed.

I think its the proportions that are a bit skewed. Taller, yet a bit narrower really blows the 'retro' look. The beltline is much higher on the new car than the older one (matches the 300/charger styling), which again gives a taller look to a car that needs to widen up a bit.

The Camaro practically skews the height/width ratio the other way with a very low-looking, wide car. It would be good to see the numbers on that one.

Back to post info, I had this like/dislike conversation just last week, I still feel the Challenger is too narrow for the redesign. Any photo-choppers out there???

Eric G

1969 camaro z28: 2009 camaro ss

Length 184.7: 190.4

Width 72.5: 75.5

Height 51.4 : 54.2

Weight 3200 - 3765 lbs: 3849lbs

The internet has different weights listed for the 1969 camaro so it varies depending on reference. Modern dimensions are from the Chevrolet website.

Someone else can compare the mustang. I think I've used up my work Internets for the day.

96DXCivic wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Hate it. And the Camaro. And the Mustang. And the Charger. Whatever retro-style junk is out there. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it.

I dislike the Camaro and the Mustang but they are terrible remakes. What is wrong with retro if it is done right? After all isn't the Miata basically just a retro version of original Elan?

It's not really quite that simple in the Miata/Elan case. I didn't even know the Elan existed until quite a few years after i knew Miatas existed.

A mustang has always been a Mustang.

And for the record, i despise the new Miatas, too.

The more I look at Chargers, the more I see it's like the original. Then you climb inside and can tell it's a Mopar. Only they can take an exciting, fast car and make it traveling salesman boring.

I don't care for the Mustang or Camaro (OK, maybe BumbleBee I like).

Dan

96DXCivic wrote:

nocones wrote: I would like to of seen the nose be a little lower more like the original. Same thing with the camaro. They have very upright front ends, and high hoods.

I am pretty sure that is because of the shiny happy people in Washington.

There's a lot of government mandated - and customer demanded - features that add to its weight. We've been working on a new Challenger that looked almost like it had a full interior except the back seat, but if you looked closer, you'd see it had the air bags, climate control, sound deadening, and other things removed. Weighed under 3200 lbs. And it still had working power windows - racing class rules required it.

Interesting data nocones. That puts it into perspective. Neither the old one nor the new Challenger is on my shopping list. I like the styling of the new one except that the track seems too narrow. They look silly from behind - it's like the wheels need to be moved outward a bit. Not sure if they were trying to mimic the original's styling or if platform limitations lead to this....is this the same car as the 300, the magnum, and the charger just with a slightly different look?

I think that it's proportions are wrong as well - too tall, especially from the back.

I also have a pet peeve with unnecessarily bulky cars. Two manifestation of this are hoodlines with lots of unused space underneath to look more macho, and high beltlines so that your head barely peers over the sill. Give me a greenhouse and good visibility any day.

z31maniac wrote: Love it. Hate the new Camaro.

I agree. I actually like the orange one too.

Overly big, fat and ugly w/ mediocre performance is the problem with all three of those retro rides.

amg_rx7 wrote: Overly big, fat and ugly w/ mediocre performance is the problem with all three of those retro rides.

hmmm some of them perform very well. What are you comparing them too?

96DXCivic wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: Hate it. And the Camaro. And the Mustang. And the Charger. Whatever retro-style junk is out there. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it.

I dislike the Camaro and the Mustang but they are terrible remakes. What is wrong with retro if it is done right? After all isn't the Miata basically just a retro version of original Elan?

I really dislike all of them, for me it is not to do with not liking retro, as I love the "retro' Mini, it is that all three miss the spirit of the originals and it speaks to a big chunk of the problem the big three got themselves into. The original muscle cars were stripped down versions picked out of their respective brand's product lines- usually the formula was to take a (for the time) small or medium sized car, stuff a big hot motor in it, sell it for a small premium. Many of them were put together specifically so the brand could be competitive in NASCAR or.NHRA. The "retro" mustang, camaro, and challenger are big cars that look puffy in an era when cars are starting to shrink and are quite apart from thier brands other offerings and maybe a privateer or two will race one of them on accident. They are focus group driven marketing exercises that look like cars from yesteryear. They are not enthusiast engineered cars for enthusiasts. i like the Cobalt SS and the Neon RT ALLOT more.

Nashco wrote:

P71 wrote: ...comparisons...

So, if you don't like the way it looks...what new car do you like the looks of? Sure, an old Challenger looks better than a new one, but the new Challenger looks better than 98% of the cars out there IMO. New cars are all pudgier version of their predecessor. MINI ain't so mini! Bryce

Bryce,

Quite a lot of new cars appeal to me actually. Hyundai Genesis Coupe, Corvette (especially the GS), Taurus (ssssh! don't tell anybody!), Fiat 500 (if it ever comes here), Fiesta, Euro Focus (again, if it ever comes), G8 (why did they stop making that car????), Boxter/Cayman, Flex (the EcoBoost wagon is just downright awesome), and the new Miata (I actually like the stupid grin on that car).

The problem is so many of the "new" cars keep going backwards in style IMO. I'd much prefer an old Speed 3 to a new one (even at the same price). Same story on the Mazda 6, Subaru WRX/STi, Subaru Legacy, Mazda 5, Ford Fusion, Ford Focus, etc, etc.

I'd say design and engineering hit a "sweet spot" in the late 90's/early to mid 2000's. I actually quite like the 94-97 and 98-04 Mustangs (especially the Mach 1 and SC Cobra), I still adore the 04-06 GTO's, the Solstice and SKY both look great to me (I'd be on the lookout for a Solstice GXP to replace the Miata in my garage one day), I absolutely love the 92-03 Trans Am's (I read all of dirtybird's threads to see pics of his) and like the same generation Camaro's as well. I also really enjoy the NB Miata, the Type-R Integra (and GSR), and many others.

I just don't find the bigger and fatter Challenger with wheelwells that make 18's look stupidly small "attractive". It's dimensions may have "only grown 6"x6", but it's at least 12" "thicker" from the top of the roof to the bottom of the sills. I really dislike the large wheelwells on all cars actually, which is why I'd never buy a 300/Magnum/Charger or even an NC.

The thing about the new Challenger is just that it LOOKS enormous thanks to those huge slab sides. Thanks to stuff like side impact regulations, it's got an acre of sheet metal on each side with itty bitty windows on top. The Camaro, Challenger, and 300 each have awful window:door size ratios.

I don't have a Challenger or new Camaro handy to measure. But just for laughs, I just measured the height of the window compared to the height of the sheet metal on the door on my 94 T-Bird SC and 05 CTS-V. These are both big cars of similar size. The Bird measured 17 inches of window to 26 inches of door, so the window was .65 the height of the door. The Cadillac was 15:28 (.53). Roof turrets are shrinking and belt lines are rising. Another way to check this is to look at the height of the decklid and hood relative to other cars.

I'd be really interested to see the same measurements for old vs. new Challengers and Camaros.

oops

The blunt front ends and high hoods are to cushion the impact when you hit a pedestrian. That way they don't get thrown over the roof. Euopean regulation.

I'll bet that if you put the new Challenger beside the Chrysler sedan and look at the firewall and radiator support, you'll find they're the same pressings. Those two pressings are usually the two most expensive in the entire car, so they've kept expenses down and ended up with the same cowl heights for both cars. The Challenger is essentially a 2 door Chrysler sedan. The Challenger, Dodge Magnum (deceased) and the Chrysler all share the same floor pans and wheelbase. Can't speak to why the Camaro has such high window sills, other than the stylists liked it tthat way. I'm not aware of the Camaro sharing it's firewall/cowl structure with another GM vehicle, but it may. That European regulation actually drives the gap between the hood and the top of the engine, so the only way to reduce hood height is to drop or shrink the engine.

I love the way it looks from directly in front...they did a great job with the headlights/grille/hood/etc...The rest, meh.

Basically, it looks like a girl with a beautiful face and nice rack, but with a 34" waist, 46" hips, tree-trunk thighs, and cankles. Wouldn't mind talking to her sitting in a restaurant booth face-to-face, but don't want to....er...."drive her."

Camaro has the same platform as the G8. Cowl height is the same.

And yes, the reason why the Challenger is so tall and fat is that it is on a modified LX platform (Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum, Dodge Charger).

Nashco wrote: I dig 'em. I'll take my R/T with a manual and white paint, but orange or black works if you're out of white paint. Seriously, I'll have one someday, just not sure when. Cool cars. Bryce

Too bad the only manuals offered in the SRT8, and even then only as an option. All V6s and RTs are automatics.

And to pick a nit, the Mustang body styles are '94-98, '99-04. Someone posted something that shifted that one year back.

Personally, the Mustang is the only one of the three I do like. (EDIT: This does NOT include the "shelby", I can't stand that thing) Standing next to a Challenger it's just mind-boggling huge. Sure, it may be very close in dimension to the original, but that doesn't make it any smaller. I think my full-size Bronco has a smaller footprint.

P71 wrote: looks like it spent 30 years eating ho-hos. Pudgy obese thing.

nuff said... its time to close this thread

if you want a muscle car/pony car get one... mod it customize it enjoy it

but dropping $40 large..... on that?

Maybe a better thread would be how I can more enjoy dropping $40 large on a car besides a Challenger/Camaro/Shelby 500???

This is grassroots motorsports is it not???

I am not saying I would drop $40k on a new one maybe in a few years I would like a used one. I think it is only one of the new "muscle cars" that even comes close to the spirit of the original. The new Camaro and Mustang look horrible. I really dislike the new Camaro. It is such a disappointment when I see one driving around. It has a big V8, a mean sound (the other two sound like they have no balls) and it can't handle worth a damn. I would say is just like old muscle cars and that is the reason I like it. By the time I get done with college and get a little money in my pocket, it will be depreciating and considering how much old muscle cars cost I think it is a great option.

I like it. When I first sat in one at the auto show last year, I was loving it. Pure muscle car with no dreams of being a sports car. A neighbor two houses down has an orange one.

That said, I'd still rather have a resto-modded original one with updated suspension, brakes and a 6 spd (still debating between a free-revving 340 or a modern Hemi).

I like 'em, but not enough to make payments on one. If I spend half of what a new one costs on our '73 it would be completely bitchin' (and it will be).

You can get the 6-speed in the R/T. At least the last time I priced one out. Only the V6 is stuck with an auto. Shame too, I think the 3.5L would be really nice mated to a manual. If a R/T with the 6-speed could match the MPG of my Intrepid R/T I would be taking a much closer look.

I don't have time to look the weights up now, but Nocones you picked a small block one with a fiberglass hood to compare to the new one. With a big block R/T the weight differences would be much smaller. With a 426 Hemi, it probably would weigh more.

-Rob