Dodge Demon revealed...

In reply to Joe Gearin:

The big question: Has GRM reached out to Dodge for a Demon Press Car yet?

I envision this years General Tire Challenge being done in a pair of Dodge Demons!

We had FCA Fiat 500 Abarths one year. Just another FCA offering!

Perhaps we could obtain a Demon and an Abarth and compare autocross times! I bet it would be pretty close!

Grizz wrote: In reply to stroker: That was the sports car.

My bad.

Remember the Ram Chargers? Factory built and they toured the country. You could buy a factory built, it as farmed out, circle track race car, add engine and go race. Good to see the spirit is still at Dodge. Rumor has it, they might go racing again.

Over the years all of the American manufacturers have had special editions that were meant as a specific track day weapon. Ford had the Fairlane Thunderbolt meant for drag racing, Dodge had the Daytona for oval track racing and GM had the COPO Camaros for drag racing. All these cars could have been done differently (on lighter chassis or whatever) but within the constraints of the bean counters and the government regulations, they were built and are currently worth deep into six figures. Also, none of them were worth a damn at autocross and weren't that good as daily drivers, either.

chandlerGTi wrote:

yupididit wrote: So how much of the LX platform is actually Mercedes after the changes and years?

None, but it gets trotted out as fact. I don't understand the hate over an "outdated" chassis, if we don't design a new chassis every couple years we fail?

How much of the platform is physically "Mercedes" parts? Probably not very much, and never was technically. As I understand it, I don't think most of it was ever literally a truly modular or directly interchangeable type of scenario. More that Chrysler simply 'borrowed' the known engineered properties of existing designed structures and components, and modified them as little as possible to fit their needs. This saved them considerable time and cost in developing 'their' platform. In doing so they also boxed the design in with certain characteristics and constraints that were entirely outside of their control, which inevitably means making more compromises. Not that there is inherently anything wrong with that, but Mercedes still did the bulk of the actual engineering work on a platform that was released 3 years prior to Chrysler's variant...Well, except for the front suspension, which is apparently even older. And in the 12 years since then, they also don't seem to have changed very much of the physical architecture, even with the 'redesign' a few years back. Again, not that there is anything inherently wrong with that, as many companies have done similarly over the years. But yes, it's going to be a nearly 20 year old architecture by time they start phasing it out, and I don't know of a car that has run a platform that long which hasn't faced at least some criticism for the most obvious characteristics resulting from doing so. That being said, they are making it work well enough with modern tuning, and they've got a muscle car biased niche that fits. But it will still be a considerable advancement when they do replace it with the much more modern ('only' 5 year old by then) Afla Giulia engineering architecture.

loosecannon wrote: Over the years all of the American manufacturers have had special editions that were meant as a specific track day weapon. Ford had the Fairlane Thunderbolt meant for drag racing, Dodge had the Daytona for oval track racing and GM had the COPO Camaros for drag racing. All these cars could have been done differently (on lighter chassis or whatever) but within the constraints of the bean counters and the government regulations, they were built and are currently worth deep into six figures. Also, none of them were worth a damn at autocross and weren't that good as daily drivers, either.

While this is true, they were pretty much all built as homologation specials so that the manufacturers could actually race them. Although it may be built in the same spirit as those old drag warriors, the Demon isn't a homologation special. It's almost the opposite in fact since Dodge hasn't expressed plans to race it, and the largest sanctioning body for it's intended purpose won't let it run as it's sold.

Joe Gearin wrote: Perhaps we could obtain a Demon and an Abarth and compare autocross times! I bet it would be pretty close!

I'm not saying the Demon would be really good at autox, I'm just saying it would be "more exciting" and challenging at autox!
Either way, I'm willing to try.

If someone built a car that runs 7s, outhandles a miata, seats 9, gets 50 mpg, had perfect hvac and stereo, had a 200k mile warranty, and an msrp of $8600 there would be people complaining that they didnt like where the gas cap was.

Yes, this car will be sold to old guys who take it car shows. Thats fine.

It wont be used for serious drag racing. The way drag racing is set up, most classes arent made for the fastest guy wins, its the guy who runs closest to his dial in wins. So a geo metro could possibly beat a demon at sanctioned drag racing. If heads up fastest guy wins racing is your thing, you shouldnt buy one of these either. You can go faster for less.

But its awesome. It looks cool, its fast, it will sell every unit made, and will get the owner tons of attention every time he leaves the house. It was a ballsy move by fca and the automotive world could use a few more ballsy moves.

Rock on Dodge Brothers.

In reply to Driven5:

The current Challenger even the Demon spec is built from the LY plateform which is an evolution of the LX. I was simply asking, how close is the LY to the LX platform and how much "engineering" is still in it?

Because, if the Challenger LY platform is a current Mercedes E-Class platform then that means the Challenger has the same as the E63AMG/S and CLS63 AMG which is nothing to bitch about at all. We all know that Mercedes can make BIG cars feel lighter than they are and puts down the power with no issue. So, the complaint of "boo they're using Mercedes E-class platform" may actually be a good thing!

No, it was originally based on the 211 chassis (itself only evolutionary different from the 210 from 1995).

In reply to yupididit:

You mean the LA? According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the LY was a stretched, rather than shortened, version used on a concept car. I would guess the LA is very close to the LX, just with a few inches taken out of it.

I agree that the performance attributes (weight, power, handling) are somewhat similar between the two brands. So in that light, yes the Mercedes/AMG analogy generally works as well on the more performance oriented trims. Which isn't overly surprising considering the basis for the engineering. As far as my understanding goes, AMG tends to make a heavy car handle decently, but not great, and make tons of power that is almost as difficult for it to put down in a straight line as in a corner. While there is an entertaining element to it, these characteristics are primarily why there are competitors to both, let alone other cars entirely, that I would generally prefer.

To me, the point is not that it's a 'bad' platform in and of itself. Just that it has been well surpassed by the competition, and that's not going to change anytime soon...Which obviously hasn't stopped them from embracing it for what it is, and making the most of it.

Grizz wrote: I've noticed that it only happens with Chrysler. Literally the only company that people bitch about when they do something ridiculous. Which is even more annoying because out of all of the companies in the US Chrysler has the longest and most varied history of doing absolutely stupid things for fun and maybe profit. Giant wings. Now. Hey these turbo things are cool, lets throw them in everything. Let's put that turbo neon motor in this ugly ass pt cruiser.

1 is "We want a wing but we're too cheap to put it on the trunk so we'll put it on the body but it needs to be really tall so the trunk can open"

2 is "We don't have any V6s so it's either this or nothing, we can't afford to crank out a new engine right now"

3 is "Hey let's put that Mexican Stratus engine in a PT Cruiser because we don't have room for one of our V6s"

Knurled wrote: 1 is "We want a wing but we're too smart to put it on the trunk so we'll put it on the body but it needs to be really tall so it actually works."

Myth Busted

Hey AMG's handle the power well. Just dont take off traction control and def dont try to hoon in "dyno mode".

In reply to Knurled:

I prefer my version fueled by coke and a why not attitude.

And the explanation of number 1 fits that model perfectly.

Hey let's make our cars really fast. Go get the guy who builds missiles for us to do it, that makes sense to me.

Joe Gearin wrote: I'm glad they had the cajones to build something like this. It's a nice break from the soul-sucking, nanny- overladen, nearly autonomous machines that are so common these days. I like that it's outrageous, insane and kinda stupid. It's a "look what we can do" car--- much like the original Viper was.

It's a cheap way to get headlines and attention instead of doing a proper redesign of an aging product.

If they milked the PR any longer before releasing it, they'd have to badge it as the Challenger SRT NSX or Challenger SRT GT86.

Why does a chassis need to be updated? It seems to be doing just fine in its intended purpose. The C4 Corvette lasted 13 years. No one said "they're hiding an aging chassis with horsepower" when they added the LT1, LT4, and LT5s.

But it's an old platform.

So?

http://www.roadkill.com/stop-saying-the-2018-dodge-demon-is-banned-from-the-dragstrip/

Haters gonna hate Ballers gonna ball Players gonna play

Appleseed wrote: Why does a chassis need to be updated? It seems to be doing just fine in its intended purpose. The C4 Corvette lasted 13 years. No one said "they're hiding an aging chassis with horsepower" when they added the LT1, LT4, and LT5s. But it's an old platform. So?

Because it's easier to regurgitate something you read on Jalopnik or other crap site than to form an opinion for yourself. When people say it's an out of date platform, or that it needs to be replaced I ask if they've driven one. Pretty much anytime I ask, the answer is no. Maybe a rental that was beat on and had the v6 and crap tires.
I'd love to see them replace it, but only because I want tonsee FCA release the chassis that I know they have hiding somewhere in Italy or Auburn Hills.

Appleseed wrote: Why does a chassis need to be updated? It seems to be doing just fine in its intended purpose. The C4 Corvette lasted 13 years. No one said "they're hiding an aging chassis with horsepower" when they added the LT1, LT4, and LT5s. But it's an old platform. So?

Need is a strong word. Remaining competitive or perhaps leading the pack is the real goal. Sure, the c4 was ground breaking when it was new, but the c5 was a better car, was it not? Eventually even the Koreans caught up.

Appleseed wrote: ...The C4 Corvette lasted 13 years. No one said "they're hiding an aging chassis with horsepower" when they added the LT1, LT4, and LT5s. But it's an old platform. So?

Ah yes, the rose colored glasses with which we inherently tend to view the past. To refresh your memory, here's a few comments from Motor Trend circa 1995 regarding the LT5 powered Corvette ZR1 vs the 911 Carrera and Supra Turbo...

Motor Trend said: The ZR1 is the oldest car here (its platform dates to '84) and shows its age with a low level of refinement. The Vettes structure is notoriously flexible, which leads to squeaks, rattles, and uncoordinated suspension motion on rough roads. The ZR1 is a packaging catastrophe: big on the outside, small on the inside. Two cycles a day of ingress and egress over the high door sills-and a sensible dinner-would make for an excellent weight-loss program. The instrument cluster is needlessly difficult to interpret, and the car still has that infuriating first-to-fourth skip-shift programming that will turn every easy cruise into a gear-grinding, fist pounding session. Sounds like we hat the Vette, right? Just the opposite. For all it does right, we forgive this American icon its many transgressions. The all-aluminum V-8 has a great, ragged sound: Winding it all the way up to the 7000-rpm redline will fire your adrenals until they run dry. With the mass of the engine slid way back, almost between the passengers, the Vette is unusually quick to change direction. The fast ratio steering will make you fell like somehow got the Personal Identification Number to your central nervous system...

Motor Trend said: ...The Supra does everything so effortlessly, it makes you wonder what all the fuss is about. And it makes you wonder how much longer we have to wait for the arrival of the next-generation Corvette. Chock one up for the Japanese, with a commendable second place for the Germans.

In other words, it too was acknowledged for being a fine car when viewed in isolation, and doing the best they could with a great engine and updated chassis tuning on an admittedly outdated platform relative to the competition...Now where do I feel like I've heard that before?

Again, why does it need to be updated?

Driven5 wrote: here's a few comments from Motor Trend circa 1995 regarding the LT5 powered Corvette ZR1 vs the 911 Carrera and Supra Turbo...

I'm honestly wondering more what MT was smoking to even have a fat highway bomber go up against two sports cars, much less win.