RLSH700

I hope they have learned the less from their own past screw ups, like the Prowler. It was a nice car but the Corvette was faster, more fuel efficient, had a manual, and was altogether a better deal. If Chrysler wants to make a car to compete directly against the Corvette and has a classic name. They ought to us either the RoadRunner or Superbird badge and use the Viper's platform, except cut down on the engine compartment to lower weight.

purple1, I agree with you on your arguments, except it depends on what you mean by small sixes. If your definition of small sixes would be a 3.5L,3.8L, or 4.0L, then I completely agree with you; however, if you mean a 2.7L or 3.3L then I disagree. It still needs enough hp and torque at the low-end to where it doesn't damage the Challenger's performance image. Back when this car was originally built during the muscle car era, any of these engines would have been an acceptable base engine (except for the 2.7L). All of these engines produces a lot more hp and roughly equal (3.3L) or better torque (3.5L, 3.8L, & 4.0L). I don't know how much it costs to build the 3.5L, 3.8L, and the 4.0L, but I would guess the price of the 3.8L would be the least. This engine wouldn't be fast but would produce comparable power to Ford's 4.0L they offer in the Mustang, but they would need to put in a 3.55 or 3.73 rear axle for acceleration purposes, which would kill the fuel economy due the gear ratios in the A580 transmission. The 3.5L would probably be the best pick. If the 4.0L was not too much higher in building price, then they should put in the 4.0L. More low end torque and slightly higher hp.