Am I the only one who likes the new Challenger?

He also picked a V6 for the new ones weight. I know for a fact the V8/auto versions are well north of 4,000 Lbs which makes them heavier than my body-on-frame P71...

P71 wrote: Can you do that with a 10 Challenger in the back and a 70 in the front for the Challenger thread? Please?

Done. Cars are scaled to 3pix / in - the '70 is 191.3 in and the '10 is 197.7 in

Its taller, but not a lot longer.

Also, its important to note that they would never be able to sell that car today, or even look like that today because of all the safety regulations.

ReverendDexter wrote:

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.

As Rob pointed out...yeah huh. You pay an extra grand and one MPG (by losing the MDS), but you can get a 6 speed manual plus V8 without getting the SRT package (which costs another $10k!). I think it's a big selling point for the R/T, I just haven't gathered the gumption (and the cash?) to buy one new.

Bryce

I still haven't figured out why we let lawyers design cars.

@$40K I find much more appeal in a C5 Vette...Z06 even.

I like the looks of the new Challenger from about 50 feet. Any closer than that, the car just looks kinda frumpy to me.

A buddy of mine just bought a 6-speed R/T. Nice car, but I kept up with him just fine in the turbo Miata that I bought for 1/10th of what he paid. And my car won't fall off the edge of the earth when it approaches a corner.

When I started kidding him about this, he started bragging about the warranty his car came with. I told him he should stop buying new cars that are expected to fail.

He still doesn't seem to see the humor in that comment.

grafmiata wrote: I like the looks of the new Challenger from about 50 feet. Any closer than that, the car just looks kinda frumpy to me. A buddy of mine just bought a 6-speed R/T. Nice car, but I kept up with him just fine in the turbo Miata that I bought for 1/10th of what he paid. And my car won't fall off the edge of the earth when it approaches a corner. When I started kidding him about this, he started bragging about the warranty his car came with. I told him he should stop buying new cars that are expected to fail. He still doesn't seem to see the humor in that comment.

For what it's worth, a new Challenger R/T with manual trans isn't much more expensive than a Mazdaspeed Miata cost when it was new. I wouldn't say an old, modified Miata is very comparable to a new Challenger...that'd be like somebody else telling you their sportbike cost half as much as your Miata and could run circles around your Miata. Not really a valid comparison, even if the statement is true.

Bryce

Nashco wrote:

grafmiata wrote: I like the looks of the new Challenger from about 50 feet. Any closer than that, the car just looks kinda frumpy to me. A buddy of mine just bought a 6-speed R/T. Nice car, but I kept up with him just fine in the turbo Miata that I bought for 1/10th of what he paid. And my car won't fall off the edge of the earth when it approaches a corner. When I started kidding him about this, he started bragging about the warranty his car came with. I told him he should stop buying new cars that are expected to fail. He still doesn't seem to see the humor in that comment.

For what it's worth, a new Challenger R/T with manual trans isn't much more expensive than a Mazdaspeed Miata cost when it was new. I wouldn't say an old, modified Miata is very comparable to a new Challenger...that'd be like somebody else telling you their sportbike cost half as much as your Miata and could run circles around your Miata. Not really a valid comparison, even if the statement is true. Bryce

I thought the MSM had an MSRP of $25,xxx when it was new.....

$5k+ more is much more expensive to me, but then again, i'm not big ballin' or anything, either.

4eyes wrote: I still haven't figured out why we let lawyers design cars.

You mean the government right.

P71 wrote: He also picked a V6 for the new ones weight. I know for a fact the V8/auto versions are well north of 4,000 Lbs which makes them heavier than my body-on-frame P71...

No I didn't I Picked the 2008 SRT8. A V8 hemi one. I also didn't claim the weight was less than 4,000lbs. The car weighed 4140 according to the resource I used (supercars.net), however according to Dodge themselves the car is 4041lbs.

I realize you have a bias against new cars and good for you. However don't ignore data from the real world. The new Challenger just isn't as heavy as people think it is. That's a fact. It's also not that much heavier than a original one.
Looks are so subjective, and the "my $20 crazily modified car is faster than you $11,000,000 stock new car" argument gets old. Some people like nice new things, some people enjoy lower cost modified older things. Your level of enjoyment with and selection of Your personal Conveyance device is a person decision and is no more correct for someone else than their own decision.
The car companies make what the public desires. The public as a whole desires lots of features bundled together for easy pickins and they love them some automatic transmissions. Get over it.

I've had a couple friends recently test drive both the Camaro and the Challenger. Both said the Challenger drives better, has better rear visibility, roomier, more comfortable and has a less cheesy interior. One even bought a Hemi Challenger. And his wife drives a new Mustang GT. Neither of my friends are racers or autocrossers so handling to them is different than handling to us.

I personally think that everyone is looking at it wrong, Retro is styled after the old one with modern safety requirements built in. So in effect this is what it would have evolved to anyway, especially considering the new mandated safety requirements that are on all new cars. And I'm sure if compared to the original, the newer models handle loads better thanks to technological improvements over time, although I'm sure not up to our standards. All newer cars are heavier. I was recently comparing my 99 Miata and my 70 Opel GT. Granted different cars, one is a hardtop coupe. But kinda close in size. Miata weighs a bit over 2000 lbs (I'm sure someone here will have the exact weight ) with over 120 hp & 1.8L engine. Opel GT weighs in the neighborhood of 1700 lbs with 102 hp & 1.9L engine. So do they compare? No, totally different. But the point is the mandated safety requirements add weight and technology adds power and handling. And what's now new cannot be accurately compared to the old. Good, bad or indifferent.

I really like the way they look. If only they had built them ~7/8 scale we'd all be singing their praises (assuming that 7/8 weight too, would put it at ~3500lb).

Meh, if it were as small as say, a Crown Vic, I'd like it more. As is, at 4,000 pounds it's just too heavy to be anything special.

Also...

P71 wrote: He also picked a V6 for the new ones weight. I know for a fact the V8/auto versions are well north of 4,000 Lbs which makes them heavier than my body-on-frame P71...

"Curb Weight (lbs)4144 "

http://www.leftlanenews.com/dodge-challenger-srt8.html

Well north.

Never driven one, but I dig the looks. HATE the wheels and the ride-height, but that's an easy fix. I still turn my head to look at one, while the new mustangs and camaros just disappear in the see of bubbles.

Particularly berkeleying hot:

I saw a new Challenger in Plum Crazy with white accents on a dealers lot a couple of days ago. It looked pretty sweet. These cars are bulbous because people want their sat nav and pumpin' stereos and A/C, it's just a fact of car life.

I'm a fan...my driveway looks like a freakin Dodge dealership now, why should I change ??

The pic of the Green one at Targa is awesome.

Out of all the new pony cars, I like the looks of the Challenger the best. I have to hand it to the Mopar boys for having the stones to build them again in many of the wild early 70's colors again.

I just wish the thing wasn't so damn expensive with a V8. You still can't get one around here without some ridiculous "adjusted market value" dealer mark-up. And sadly, the new Mustang GT does everything better and $10,000 cheaper than the SRT8.

Shaun wrote: 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.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I don't want something that looks like an overscale classic muscle car. I want something built with the same philosophy (midsized car, big damn motor, RWD). Looking somewhat like an old one is a cool bonus.

I freaking LOVE the new Challenger, especially an R/T Classic in Plum Crazy.

Way too many people comparing it to a pure sports car and saying "it sucks 'cause a Miata outcorners it." That's like doing a lot of towing with a pickup and saying a Miata sucks 'cause it can't tow a 4 horse trailer; it just SMACKS of ignorance and closed mindedness.

The Challenger is retro, done as an homage to the original, with modern detailing and tech. The Mustang is not retro, as it is styled and engineered as if this is where the car would have gone under continuous evolvement. So much better than musclecars and ponycars back in the day. Both of them handle quite well (and better than many modded road racing versions of the old cars), stop excellent, make more power and get better fuel mileage and better emissions, while being safer. It's amazing, in fact.

As for the roofline to side proportions, I've spent way too much time with chopped top '50s and '60s customs and street rods/hot rods. The challenger still has tall windows and excellent visibility in comparison to cars I've had no problem driving.

Yeah, it's a little heavy, but my 740iL is heavier, handles great, and has much less power while still feeling rapid. While I like tiny cars, sports cars, etc, I guess I just have a different perspective on what's a valid performance car or not. I don't NEED a car to be a Caterham in order to be worth driving and having fun with.

96DXCivic wrote:

4eyes wrote: I still haven't figured out why we let lawyers design cars.

You mean the government right.

Yup. I don't understand why the market can't shape the cars. You want a safe car. Fine buy a car designed to be big slow heavy and safe in a collision. (think old volvo/mercedes) You want fast? Fine buy a car built with just enough structure to withstand the torque it produces. (thinking lotus) Why does every car have to please the nanny state.

http://www.adclassix.com/a3/79mitsubishiengine.htm

Everyone hated these too.

Just because we're posting pics of heavy retro new cars racing now....

my buddy's race team, Mitchum Motorsports, cashed in their Rolex Porsche 996 and this year is running a new Camaro in the Grand-Am series...