Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Modern Muscle with Classic Names

79customd79customd Posts: 87
edited April 8 in Chevrolet
Between Ford, Dodge, and Chevy, the muscle car has been revived. Ford started the trend with its throwback exterior on its new Mustang. Dodge has since came up with a barely historic revival of the Charger nameplate and a Challenger concept both equipped with retro "Hemi" V8s. The Chevy group has revived the Camarow after a short rest of the previous generation Camarows. This is clearly an engaugement in a modern muscle car shootout. With all that said what is the best bet at what cars gonna win the king of muscle in modern times.

I'd place my vote with that Camarow concept. 6.0L V8 in a light frame. That things a gonna fly!
«13456789

Comments

  • A newspaper would like to interview a female consumer who has been turned off by Dodge: either she shopped for a Dodge vehicle but couldn't find anything to meet her needs, or she did not like the macho approach that Dodge uses in its ads. Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com before Friday, March 3, 2006 with your daytime contact info, your vehicle's year, make and model, and a few thoughts on the subject of interest.

    Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,379
    I wouldn't get too excited. I like most of the neo-retro muscle cars but I haven't forgotten what happened last time. Insurance companies and gas shortages killed the firs muscle car era, I'm not sure that won't happen again.

    BTW, there's no W in Camaro.
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    I'd place my vote with that Camarow concept. 6.0L V8 in a light frame. That things a gonna fly!

    You can forget about that "light frame" part. I'll be amazed if the production Camaro weighs an ounce under 3600 pounds, and it will probably be closer to 3700.
  • Compared to the power of the 6.0L the weight of the vehichle will be easily powered. The 6.0L moves the Silverado SS down the road in tests so the same engine in a lighter frame such as a car, will be a speedster :)

    BTW I knew I wont spelling that right.
  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    It might be a few tenths quicker than a GTO, but that's about it.
  • Probably correct,
    The Camaro is gonna want to slip out due to very uneven power to weight ratio, and while your spinning you aint going no where. The 5.3L would probably be quicker than the 6.0L all thing said and done unless they do like Chrysler and make a heavier platform such as the LX.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    The odd thing about the retro Challenger and Camaro concepts (and let's remember that they're concepts and not production cars....if produced they could look very different) but:

    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all.

    Odd to me that I see it that way.
  • irnmdnirnmdn Posts: 240
    So called modern muscle cars still use outdated engines, antiquated suspensions and transmissions by cotemporary sports cars standards from Europe and Asia. So where is is 'modern' in all this? They have one thing going for then - styling. The title of this thread might as well be "Pig with lipstick"
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    and some of us don't mind (believe it or not)...although I think you do overstate it a little....
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    I realize there's a big market for well done old-tech, but it has the potential to scare away buyers in other segments. The Big 3 have been known to glorify "old tech" and that's led people to go to Toyota and Honda.

    While it's probable that new muscle cars get more sales than they scare away, the Big 3 will have to be careful in their marketing to avoid an old-tech, living-in-the-past stigma.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    Anything that aides in automotive diversity and keeps things from getting too "anti-septic" is fine by me. Also doesn't hurt to revist the 60's as that is personally my favorite era for automotive style.

    Besides we're not talking about manual chokes, carburators, drum brakes or adjusting points. These are modern cars.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 16,379
    I'd be more interested in the new pony cars if they were more efficient and up to date in terms of use of available space and running gear.

    The market for such vehicles is too limited, some of these cars are bound to fall by the wayside.
    There won't be a revival of the three way battle for supremacy that took place from '67 to '73 (actually it was a four way battle if you count AMC).
  • ron_mron_m Posts: 188
    The odd thing about the retro Challenger and Camaro concepts (and let's remember that they're concepts and not production cars....if produced they could look very different) but:

    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all. Odd to me that I see it that way.


    It's funny that you say this, because my sentiments mirror yours exactly on this particular subject. When I was about 10 years old, most of my older brother's friends drove cars like Mustangs, RoadRunners, Challengers, GTOs(including 'The Judge') and Camaros. Back then the Camaro was my personal favorite. Never cared much for the Challenger at all. But I have to say that I liked the recent Challenger concept car much better than the Camaro concept car. The Challenger more closely resembles the original for sure. However, I'd still like to have a production version of that Camaro concept car if GM would just tone it down a bit. At this point, it's just too garish for my particular taste. Well, at least for a retro muscle car anyway.

    Ron M.
  • twaintwain Posts: 185
    I really like 67-69 Camaros, but have never liked any of the Challangers, regardless of year (Chargers are another story though...). But I love the new Challanger concept and cannot stand that Camaro concept at all.
    ----------------------------------

    I like the Challenger better too. It's clean and simple, the Camaro design looks too busy. I'd like the Camaro better if it looked more like the 67-69s.

    And I'd like them both better if they weighed under 3000lbs and cost under 25k. They don't need 500hp hemis if Dodge and Chevy would just make them smaller and lighter. Even a 250hp V6 would be quick at under 3000lbs.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,579
    the original '70-74 Challenger/Barracuda weren't exactly lightweights, either. Most Ponycars are based on a compact platform (Falcon for the Mustang, Chevy II/Nova for the Camaro, and Dart/Valiant for the first two Barracudas). The '70-74 Barracuda/Challenger were built on the midsized Satellite/Coronet/Charger/Sebring et. al. platform.

    I think some of the big-block models probably got up to around 3,600 lb, but when you figure that many of the regular models on that Mopar B body (the Barracuda/Challenger was called the E-body though) easily topped 4,000 lb, that WAS light!

    For the Charger concept, all Dodge did was take 4 inches out of the LX wheelbase, so like the original Charger, it's based on a larger, heavier car, instead of just a fragile compact. I doubt if they'd be able to get the weight down much on a production model without coming up with a whole new dedicated platform. Consider that a BMW 3-series is around 3200 lb, and compared to something Challenger-sized, they're practically microcars!
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    So called modern muscle cars still use outdated engines, antiquated suspensions and transmissions by cotemporary sports cars standards from Europe and Asia.

    Several sources I've read say if GM made a Camaro, it would be based on a less expensive variation of the Cadillac Sigma platform. It would come with either the new GM 6 manual or automatic. All pretty modern and competitive.

    The V8 engine, as has been argued death in Corvette forums, is lighter and produces more power per gallon of gas than just about anything from Europe and Asia. If this is outdated, then the modern technology has taken a wrong turn somewhere.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    In that vein, also consider that the current Mustang's 4.6l V8 engine is pretty high-tech itself, variable valve timing and all.

    Also, the Mustang's new live rear axle, though old in design, actually performs quite well and does better than many fully independent set-ups.
  • logic1logic1 Posts: 2,433
    Also, the Mustang's new live rear axle, though old in design, actually performs quite well and does better than many fully independent set-ups.

    Especially when you consider the cost. The Mustang provides front engine, rear wheel drive fun with a relatively quiet, roomy cabin and large trunk for under 30k loaded.

    I'll live with the 'your low tech' comments, invest the difference in cost and laugh my way to the bank.
  • Based on appearances, all we have to go on thus far, I think the Mustang is way ahead of the Camaro and Challanger. The Challanger looks boxy and stubby, worse even than the original (see the Edmunds video: the designer even admits the original looked bad). The Camaro just doesn't hang together stylistically, not like the original. They both look like rush jobs, something the automakers threw out in a hurry in order to capitalize on a hot market opened up by Ford.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,579
    with the Challenger is the front-end. It almost looks too soft and "friendly" compared to the '70-74, which had a more serious, you-don't-wanna-mess-with-me look to them. I think if the car had at least some suggestion of a front bumper it would help things alot. As it is, that smooth front with the lower air intake has a slight curve to it that almost makes it look like the car is smiling at you.

    I'd say by today's standards, one thing that looks awkward about the old Challegner/Barracuda is that the wheels are too "tucked in"...cars today tend to be more slab-sided and have a wider track. It was decent for the time, though. Actually, they did have a fairly wide track, being based on midsized cars. A friend of mine has a 1959 Dodge Coronet, and he has the rear end from an E-body. They're so close in the critical dimensions that it's almost a perfect fit.
This discussion has been closed.