How much Mercedes is left in the current Challenger/Charger? I assume Dodge would use its own hardware. Why not also use their own electronics?
How much Mercedes is left in the current Challenger/Charger? I assume Dodge would use its own hardware. Why not also use their own electronics?
tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:z31maniac said:Is Dodge ever going to update the Challenger chassis?
The top selling Corvette ever is the '79. The engines were terrible and the chassis was great for '62, but completely hopelessly out of date among its peers in 1979.
So I guess what I am saying is that the Challenger is a way better car among its peers than the 1979 Corvette was among its peers, and both the Mustang and Camaro have seen a significant redesign since the Challenger came on the scene in 2008. That means that FCA is saving something like a billion dollars over Ford and GM, and still outselling the Camaro handily.
Ok. Hand over your Corvette history card please.
“The engines were terrible and the chassis was great for ‘62...” what are you talking about? And by today’s standards, yes, a ‘79 Corvette would be pretty bad. But by 1979 standards it was pretty darned good. It was 1979. Do you have any idea what it was up against? Have you owned a malaise car? Even a US spec 930 was pretty neutered. I’m sure at least one on here will explain that a ‘79 Jaguar would run rings around it but I’m dubious at best. And yes a certain Dodge truck was faster because it didn’t have to play by the same rules since truck and even got to use a few of the original Mopar muscle car parts.
In reply to A 401 CJ :
The Trans Am was faster too, which a lot of people at GM did not like. Those extra 50 cubes helped.
And for the record I owned a 78 Mustang for a few years. It's a C2 with a facelift and less power. If I want that driving style, I'd rather have a chrome bumper 69 to 72 car all day long.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:And for the record I owned a 78 Mustang for a few years. It's a C2 with a facelift and less power. If I want that driving style, I'd rather have a chrome bumper 69 to 72 car all day long.
How much less actual power though? There were a lot of questionable output claims in the '60s. I'm poking around for documented acceleration numbers and it looks like the lower output '79 is faster than the higher output '69.
In reply to MrFancypants :
79 would be on radial tires. Corvette, we would be comparing a solid lifter small block that grossed 360 horsepower, if I recall. It was at least a hundred real horsepower better than the best small Block in 79.
I've also driven a 71 Mustang with a 4bbl 351 C, and an early fox Mustang with the tiny V8. They were two dramatically different cars, one with at the very least, six times more power anywhere above 3500rpm.
A 401 CJ said:tuna55 (Forum Supporter) said:z31maniac said:Is Dodge ever going to update the Challenger chassis?
The top selling Corvette ever is the '79. The engines were terrible and the chassis was great for '62, but completely hopelessly out of date among its peers in 1979.
So I guess what I am saying is that the Challenger is a way better car among its peers than the 1979 Corvette was among its peers, and both the Mustang and Camaro have seen a significant redesign since the Challenger came on the scene in 2008. That means that FCA is saving something like a billion dollars over Ford and GM, and still outselling the Camaro handily.
Ok. Hand over your Corvette history card please.
“The engines were terrible and the chassis was great for ‘62...” what are you talking about? And by today’s standards, yes, a ‘79 Corvette would be pretty bad. But by 1979 standards it was pretty darned good. It was 1979. Do you have any idea what it was up against? Have you owned a malaise car? Even a US spec 930 was pretty neutered. I’m sure at least one on here will explain that a ‘79 Jaguar would run rings around it but I’m dubious at best. And yes a certain Dodge truck was faster because it didn’t have to play by the same rules since truck and even got to use a few of the original Mopar muscle car parts.
My family owned, and I often drove a 77 and a 79. I stand by my statement. The chassis was new for 63. It was good then. The engines were worse than in 63.
Streetwiseguy said:In reply to MrFancypants :
79 would be on radial tires. Corvette, we would be comparing a solid lifter small block that grossed 360 horsepower, if I recall. It was at least a hundred real horsepower better than the best small Block in 79.
I've also driven a 71 Mustang with a 4bbl 351 C, and an early fox Mustang with the tiny V8. They were two dramatically different cars, one with at the very least, six times more power anywhere above 3500rpm.
Didn't the older cars also have the advantage of being designed around the easy availability of high octane leaded fuel?
No interest in the Hellcat no matter how awesome it is. I would take the C8 at $75k over the Hellcat at $45k unless we are allowed to flip whichever car we pick and keep the cash.
I cross shopped the Hellcat and the Mazda CX-3 and I wound up pulling the trigger on the 3.
I'll see myself out.
MrFancypants said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:And for the record I owned a 78 Mustang for a few years. It's a C2 with a facelift and less power. If I want that driving style, I'd rather have a chrome bumper 69 to 72 car all day long.
How much less actual power though? There were a lot of questionable output claims in the '60s. I'm poking around for documented acceleration numbers and it looks like the lower output '79 is faster than the higher output '69.
Well the L82 originally put down some low 14 second 1/4 miles. By the time 78 rolled around it was mid to high 15s and that was with 3.70 gears which my car had. It sounded better and felt quickish.
RX Reven' said:I cross shopped the Hellcat and the Mazda CX-3 and I wound up pulling the trigger on the 3.
I'll see myself out.
We can't be friends anymore
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to A 401 CJ :
The Trans Am was faster too, which a lot of people at GM did not like. Those extra 50 cubes helped.
But it had to say "T/A 6.6" and not "6.6 Liter". That extra 3 cubic inches made it a dog's dog. :-)
mr2s2000elise said:RX Reven' said:I cross shopped the Hellcat and the Mazda CX-3 and I wound up pulling the trigger on the 3.
I'll see myself out.
We can't be friends anymore
Would it have helped if I had slathered my post with smiley faces. You know, like this...
Joking aside, I respect whatever people are in to (we're joined by our general love of cars, not specific models or even broad classifications).
I just thought going all-in with the extreeeme juxtaposition between the two cars was interesting and funny so I decided make a short post.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:MrFancypants said:AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:And for the record I owned a 78 Mustang for a few years. It's a C2 with a facelift and less power. If I want that driving style, I'd rather have a chrome bumper 69 to 72 car all day long.
How much less actual power though? There were a lot of questionable output claims in the '60s. I'm poking around for documented acceleration numbers and it looks like the lower output '79 is faster than the higher output '69.
Well the L82 originally put down some low 14 second 1/4 miles. By the time 78 rolled around it was mid to high 15s and that was with 3.70 gears which my car had. It sounded better and felt quickish.
Et is not nearly as good a horsepower indicator as trap speed. 69 Lt1 ran 101 mph, 78 L82 ran 88 mph.
That's a lot.
Also, an aluminum block ZL1 apparently ran a 10 at 130 mph, driven by someone who hates cars, based on the description of the 3000rpm neutral drop launch.
In reply to Streetwiseguy :
I'm not sure if you ever read Jim Wanger's book but you should. I take all of the magazine tests from that time with a big grain of salt, aka salt lick.
Yes trap speed is a better indicator of HP, but we all know the Smog L82 was weaker than the same engine pre smog. Those old pancake converters and single exhausts were awful.
The solid cammed LT-1 was a big leap in performance over the hydraulic cammed L-82.
I love this forum, and how a poll question between two modern cars delves into 1960s and 1970s comparisons.
The answer for me is simple. Ford F-350 regular cab long box 4x4 with a powerstroke, ,mud tires, and a flatbill.
Or Corvette SUV.
In reply to D2W :
Anytime Corvette is mentioned, there is a lot of history that made the car what it is today. Without anemic '75-'82 Vettes, we probably wouldn't have a C8.
RX Reven' said:mr2s2000elise said:RX Reven' said:I cross shopped the Hellcat and the Mazda CX-3 and I wound up pulling the trigger on the 3.
I'll see myself out.
We can't be friends anymore
Would it have helped if I had slathered my post with smiley faces. You know, like this...
Joking aside, I respect whatever people are in to (we're joined by our general love of cars, not specific models or even broad classifications).
I just thought going all-in with the extreeeme juxtaposition between the two cars was interesting and funny so I decided make a short post.
Haha I gotcha!!
Speaking of Corvettes, just heard today that Hertz is gonna sell off its fleet of C7 Z06. So if you own one, somebody just diluted the market and yours is now worth less.
https://www.hertzcarsales.com/hertz-100th-anniversary-corvette-z06.htm
MrChaos said:Lets say one has $65k for a new american sports car and ignoring the whole c8 production freeze.
Challenger Hellcat Widebody 717 warrantied HP
vs
C8 w/ Z51 package Americas budget supercar.
With these two specific cars it is the white paint of the C8 that kills it for me. Hellcat all day long but it is mostly because of the color.
I realize I'm out of touch & definitely not in the demographic to be interested in either car, but I truly can't tell the C8 from most other contemporary super/exotic cars without seeing the badge.
I'm glad GM transitioned you're mid-engine to allow them to keep increasing the model's performance, but I just don't see anything that identifies it as a Vette vs. Ferrari, Ford GT, NSX, etc.
A 401 CJ said:Speaking of Corvettes, just heard today that Hertz is gonna sell off its fleet of C7 Z06. So if you own one, somebody just diluted the market and yours is now worth less.
https://www.hertzcarsales.com/hertz-100th-anniversary-corvette-z06.htm
If you own an automatic Z06! But that's your fault for buying one in the first place....
In reply to Pete Gossett (Forum Supporter) :
That's the sad part according to most tests performance did not increase and may have actually gone down.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to Pete Gossett (Forum Supporter) :
That's the sad part according to most tests performance did not increase and may have actually gone down.
What performance? The 0-60 time was cut by a full second! From 3.8 to 2.8 seconds. That's an astronomical improvement. Car and driver showed a 1-second per lap improvement around Grattan. Not much of a difference but a second is significant and it's certainly not a decrease in performance. Plus I don't doubt that there's time left on the table given it was a journalist driving and Grattan has rough pavement.
You'll need to log in to post.
