Howdy, Stranger!

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





Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

1161718192022»

Comments

  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Yeah, I wish they would shrink some. 74" is my limit. The Stang is getting fatter with age. Yeah, I know I am too. Anyway, sporty cars should be lighter and smaller. I wish Chrysler would make a smaller Challenger, with a V6, and based on a new platform. A new, RWD platform for the smaller sedan, coupe and Challenger. Make them all around 3,000#, like the Altima, with the 250HP V6, and 5 or 6sp. automatics, or stick shifts as a delete price item.
    The size should be around the BMW3 sized auto. With sedan or coupe at $20K, and 21K for a Challenger. All starter, without most extras, like anti-lock brakes, and fancy stereos and such. Have upgrade package for say $3K.

    Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    SUV is an SUV is an..... Best deal is the Mazda Tribute. Saw one with a stick last year for $15K -- brand new! Now that is the way to buy an SUV, if you want one.

    Better watch it that Mazda Tribute is UAW made. :P

    Rocky
  • 80's;The Charger was an Omni based coupe the Omni. It was called the Omni 024 when it was introduced in '79, Omni was dropped in '81, Charger was added in 82, and the 024 was dropped in 83. The base engine was either a 1.7L 70hp volkswagen, or a 1.6L 62hp Peugoet. Dodges own 2.2L was available in 84, 96, 110, 146 and 174 horsepower versions through its lifespan that ended in 1987.

    70s-80s; Dodge revived the Ramcharger name for its full-size SUV in 1973, which recieved only minor updates before it was cancelled almost 2 decades later.

    60s-70s; Dodge introduces a aerodynamic coupe based on the B-body format in 1966. It is considered the replacement for the larger (but also B-bodied) Ramcharger, but the name is shortened to just Charger. The styling is updated in ’68, 71, and 75, and is then renamed Magnum when the 75 design is freshened with square headlights.

    Early 60’s; Dodge introduces its own track ready superstock under the name Ramcharger in 1962. It is basically a light weight, race ready version of the full-sized Polara/Monaco. It inspires such songs as “Shut your down” and “The little old lady from Pasadena”. It carries over to the Coronet in ’65 before being replaced by the Charger in ’66.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,040
    of a 60's RamCharger. At least not a production car. Was that a racecar or something? I know they used the name Cross Ram on some of their big block wedges with the offset dual quad setup.

    Oh, here's a dumb question, but in the song "Shut down", was the lyric "Super Stock Dodge is starting out in low" or "Super Stock Dart's starting out in low"? I swear I hear the second.

    But then I also hear "'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy" in that Jimi Hendrix song! :P
  • The Ramcharger was a performance package on the Polara, in the sence that the SS was on the Impala. Although it was intended as a race car, it could be licenced for the street.

    The lyric is "Super Stock Dodge", in fact it say "two cool shorts" which were altered wheelbase cars. And although I've seen "short" Coronets and Impalas I cant image a "short" Vette.

    image
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    OH MY GAWD !!!!! :confuse:

    Rocky
  • Okay, it may not be a looker, but in stock form it was faster in the 1/4 mile than a FI Vette of the same year. Yes, I know that in the song the Vette won, but it also said they were modified.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,040
    I think those '62 Dodges are kinda cool, in a vulgar sort of way! And while the GTO might get credit for kicking off the musclecar phrase, these '62 shrunken Dodges and Plymouths fit that formula to a Tee. They were passed off as downsized full-sized cars, but were about 15 years too early for that to work. They were really more mid-sized. And they were designed, from the get-go, to accommodate any Mopar engine on up to the 413 and 426 big-blocks of the time (the 440 didn't come out until around 1965 or 1966).
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    I think your right on the second verse seeing that '62dodge
    is a Dart.The 440 came out in '66 along with the 426 Hemi.In '67 the high performance was born with the GTX.I also checked out the specs for the new Challenger and its not small just looks that way.it has 197.8 length which is 1in. longer than the 300.it is 78.6wide which is 4inches wider than the Charger.116in.wheelbase which is 4inches
    shorter then the Charger.I couldn't find the weight.With a
    Hemi 6speed std.0-60 in 4.5secs.1/4 mile in 13.top speed is 174.Its fast.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,040
    for the original '70-74 Challenger, and it looks like they were about 76" wide. In comparison, the '70+ Camaro and the "fat" '71-73 Mustangs were 74" wide.

    Interesting, considering back then the Mustang and Camaro were based on compact cars, while the Challenger and Barracuda were based on midsized cars, that the Challenger didn't end up that much fatter.

    These cars were pretty much rendered obsolete by the likes of the Demon/Duster, which were only around 72" wide, had smallblock V-8's that would run with the big boys (and often embarrass them), were more maneuverable, and roomier inside.

    Ford never really offered anything truly high-performance on the Maverick platform, although you could get them with a 302 V-8. Earlier versions of the Nova were incredibly hot, with engines like the hopped-up 327, 396, and 402. However, by 1971 the top engine was a 270 hp (gross, about 200 net) 350, and it only went downhill from there. Plus, a Nova was heavier than a Demon/Duster or Maverick, so it needed more cubes to move.

    I wonder if one reason they made the Charger concept so wide is to keep the proportioning? The original was 76" wide and about 192" long. So, since the new one is 198" long, perhaps it would have looked awkward if they kept it at the 74" width of the 300/Charger? Believe it or not, it might have actually made the car look bigger. One styling trick to make a car look bigger is actually to make it narrower. Sounds silly, but it tricks the eye into thinking the car is longer than it actually is. Until something else parks next to it to give you a true perspective of its real size.
  • These cars were pretty much rendered obsolete by the likes of the Demon/Duster

    Actually, the Duster was introduced in '70, the same year as a Challenger. And although the Challenger was a larger version of the also new Barracuda, the Duster was a continuation of the previous Barracuda (the 70 340 Duster used 69 Barracuda trim and interior instead of the Valiant parts used on lesser Dusters).
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,040
    Yeah, I know. I just picked 1971 as an example year, because by then the "Fat" Mustangs were on the market, to go along with the bigger Camaro/Firebird and the Challenger/Barracuda. Although even though the 1970 Mustang was smaller, I'm guessing it was still a bit of a porker?

    I had '68 Barracuda door panels in my '68 Dart for awhile. Almost a perfect fit, except that the rear panels were a bit too short. The Barracuda was on a 3-inch shorter wheelbase than my Dart hardtop, and all of that 3 inches was taken out of the back seat area. The seatback hid most of the gap created by the shorter rear interior panels, but you could still see it.
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    Can you tell me how to put a picture like you did here?I'm
    trying to tell someone on another forum how to do this.
    Thanks for your help.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,040
    Nowadays it's real easy to post a pic on Edmunds. Basically, just copy the url of the picture you want to show. Then, click on the little box that says "Img" in the row above the emoticons underneath the text box. You'll get the start of the coding to post an image, and the "Img" button will now show up in red. At that point, paste in your url, and then click the "Img" button again.

    Then, when you're finished typing and post the message, the picture will show up.

    Now some websites such as Angelfire have blocking software, so if you try to post a pic from there, the image won't show up. And sometimes if you post a pic from a website that you have to log into to see, it won't show up either.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    So now that it's gettting more common on the road, any new views on the new Charger?

    I find I really prefer it to the 300...the Charger's retro-inspired design seems more uniquely Chrysler compared with the (to my eyes anyway) look of the 300.

    True though that from the side, the new Charger seems way too long...I guess I'm still seeing the original coupe in my mind. It's the retro c-pillar that does it I think.
  • moparman4moparman4 Posts: 1
    LOL you are confused My 74 handles as well as my stealth{for it's age} and makes A bit more hp than 160 it Will and HAS eaten the lunch of a few late modle magnums and * cough cough Chargers* also get 19 mpg with a 360 the 400 73/73 were dogs agreed~
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    Thanks for the info on putting up a picture on the forums.I
    not the best when it comes to computers.
  • rockyleerockylee Wyoming, MichiganPosts: 13,993
    Group investigates outsourcing production of subcompact to be sold in America and overseas.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/AUTO01/605050386/- 1148

    Rocky
  • xtecxtec Posts: 354
    I read somewhere that they are going to have a new engine for the Challeger to keep up with the 07 Mustang GT500.It
    will be a 6.8Hemi with 505 HP.Now that sounds nice.
This discussion has been closed.