Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
02-12-2008, 01:36 AM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location:
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-12-2008, 02:58 AM
#42
Senior Member
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
Tass13 I hear you on the days gone by. The memories are still fresh with the sound of certain Rock and Roll songs or a smell of burning rubber or a fried clutch. These can take me back instantly. I'm 48 years old and I yearn for those exciting days. But we are 30 years to the future and the world has changed. But heres a slice, just a tidbit. But I will grasp it up and hold on tight. I have two boys who are passinate about cars. And I wish they could expierence just one week of the awsome cruising we did in our teens. The Hemi. LS6, Boss 429. These meant somthing to us. Its a language few speak today, but we know. So make your choice and enjoy the brief moment, like a vapor it could be gone[
] But I'm going to enjoy it with my boys.
] But I'm going to enjoy it with my boys.
02-12-2008, 06:10 AM
#43
Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location:
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
ORIGINAL: Axel
I love that red interior on that Mustang, I however don't love the leather and the back. Those seats in the back are so comfortable, but the height requirement is 4 ft. Any larger and you have issues. lol. I also don't care for all that bright junk. Seems that is the thing that people want in the Stangs, but I would rather not. If I could get rid of the chrome around the heater vents I would. My wife's Avenger has all that bright and it's a real joy when the sun is hitting it just right as you are driving. To me it doesn't accent the car, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I had to get mine shipped from another state just to get it the way I wanted it. I don't even like the chrome on the outside of the Rams. I had to have the sports package when I got it. Just me and my opinion though.
As for Mopar ruiling the era and bringing in the dough, maybe at one point they brought in the dough, but I don't think they ever ruled the area. There was competition all the time, but I think Ford has always had it with the Mustang and I can't quite figure out why. At least I believe that's who had the best selling of the time since I can't seem to find numbers on sales. Maybe because it was more affordable or something, I don't know because safety sure wasn't at the top of the list. I believe, and I could be wrong on this also, that Mopar came in to late to really take any domination of anything unfortunately. Had they entered sooner then I believe that they would have been able to beat the competition hands down. (Now everyone that lived that era, or know more, correct me as I'm to young to know any better. lol)
Back to the money thing, if they have been doing so good and being different, why did a Germany company buy it out and then turn around and sell it at a loss? As for the change, concepts are built without any regard to safety or any other government standards. They are a show car that is never meant to be driven by the masses. If any company tried to bring out a car exactly like the ones that they had back in the day, then they would probably be in a lot of trouble with the government. If you want to blame someone for the outside that you don't care for, which I have to say is quite awesome though I have a few complaints that are no big deal, then you need to talk to the government and ask them to relax all the safety standards that they have for vehicles. As for the interior, you can blame Chyrsler all you want for that one because I agree that was just a major mess up in my opinion.
To me this muscle car hits it right on the head in terms of reproduction. Mustang is a very close second, Camaro is a joke. Interior wise, Challenger is a joke, Mustang is close and Camaro is close in terms of reproduction of the original. Don't know who would win that one. I would have to do some comparisons.
In terms of complaining. From what I hear you could be in a minority when it comes to the design of this car. The interior may be a different story, but in terms of this being a bad desing on the outside, I don't see again. Again, I have my complaints, the mirrors are strange, the butterfly valves are gone and I miss the rear concept light, but this other has grown on me, but overall they did a pretty dang good job. You don't see many concept cars come out that are this close at all. I can think of another one, though I'm sure there are many others, which would be the Viper and I hear that thing has a bad fire wall so it gets pretty hot in the cockpit.
I'm sorry to say, but if you don't like it then there are other cars out there for you. Please enjoy. (side note, most of this is in response to Tass13 comments)
I love that red interior on that Mustang, I however don't love the leather and the back. Those seats in the back are so comfortable, but the height requirement is 4 ft. Any larger and you have issues. lol. I also don't care for all that bright junk. Seems that is the thing that people want in the Stangs, but I would rather not. If I could get rid of the chrome around the heater vents I would. My wife's Avenger has all that bright and it's a real joy when the sun is hitting it just right as you are driving. To me it doesn't accent the car, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I had to get mine shipped from another state just to get it the way I wanted it. I don't even like the chrome on the outside of the Rams. I had to have the sports package when I got it. Just me and my opinion though.
As for Mopar ruiling the era and bringing in the dough, maybe at one point they brought in the dough, but I don't think they ever ruled the area. There was competition all the time, but I think Ford has always had it with the Mustang and I can't quite figure out why. At least I believe that's who had the best selling of the time since I can't seem to find numbers on sales. Maybe because it was more affordable or something, I don't know because safety sure wasn't at the top of the list. I believe, and I could be wrong on this also, that Mopar came in to late to really take any domination of anything unfortunately. Had they entered sooner then I believe that they would have been able to beat the competition hands down. (Now everyone that lived that era, or know more, correct me as I'm to young to know any better. lol)
Back to the money thing, if they have been doing so good and being different, why did a Germany company buy it out and then turn around and sell it at a loss? As for the change, concepts are built without any regard to safety or any other government standards. They are a show car that is never meant to be driven by the masses. If any company tried to bring out a car exactly like the ones that they had back in the day, then they would probably be in a lot of trouble with the government. If you want to blame someone for the outside that you don't care for, which I have to say is quite awesome though I have a few complaints that are no big deal, then you need to talk to the government and ask them to relax all the safety standards that they have for vehicles. As for the interior, you can blame Chyrsler all you want for that one because I agree that was just a major mess up in my opinion.
To me this muscle car hits it right on the head in terms of reproduction. Mustang is a very close second, Camaro is a joke. Interior wise, Challenger is a joke, Mustang is close and Camaro is close in terms of reproduction of the original. Don't know who would win that one. I would have to do some comparisons.
In terms of complaining. From what I hear you could be in a minority when it comes to the design of this car. The interior may be a different story, but in terms of this being a bad desing on the outside, I don't see again. Again, I have my complaints, the mirrors are strange, the butterfly valves are gone and I miss the rear concept light, but this other has grown on me, but overall they did a pretty dang good job. You don't see many concept cars come out that are this close at all. I can think of another one, though I'm sure there are many others, which would be the Viper and I hear that thing has a bad fire wall so it gets pretty hot in the cockpit.
I'm sorry to say, but if you don't like it then there are other cars out there for you. Please enjoy. (side note, most of this is in response to Tass13 comments)
02-12-2008, 11:23 AM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location:
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
Again in reply to Tass13 comments. You are talking about back in the day and such, the racing, the Hemi, so on and so forth. Well, if that's the case, I think you should be complaining about a lot more then just the interior and the body/rear end. Let's see, the Hemi isn't a true Hemi, it's a semi Hemi, fine with me, Hemi sounds better then semi Hemi and it doesn't disgrace the name like the Charger name has been disgraced in the past.
The rear end, I have a complaint about that to, but not the body. Mine comes with what the Mustang has that the Challenger does, solid rear axel. What do you expect though with these old farts that want their improved handeling. Just kidding everyone. If the times that they post for the 6.1L are correct, then I'm sure a solid rear would make this car even faster off the line even if it did give it wosre handeling.
We are with new times and unfortunately the car companies can't please everyone. I agree with the interior 100% being horrible, but the others have to do with technology and I can't complain about those, but if you want to complain about how things were in the past then you can definitely not leave those out. Especially if you are talking about straight acceleration. That solid rear was what made that possible along with everything up to that Hemi engine.
The rear end, I have a complaint about that to, but not the body. Mine comes with what the Mustang has that the Challenger does, solid rear axel. What do you expect though with these old farts that want their improved handeling. Just kidding everyone. If the times that they post for the 6.1L are correct, then I'm sure a solid rear would make this car even faster off the line even if it did give it wosre handeling.
We are with new times and unfortunately the car companies can't please everyone. I agree with the interior 100% being horrible, but the others have to do with technology and I can't complain about those, but if you want to complain about how things were in the past then you can definitely not leave those out. Especially if you are talking about straight acceleration. That solid rear was what made that possible along with everything up to that Hemi engine.
02-13-2008, 08:56 AM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location:
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
ORIGINAL: Tass13
Any Mopar driver over 40 disagree??
Any Mopar driver over 40 disagree??
YEP! I owned an original and HELL YEAH, it was a fun car and (beautiful) but it was by no means the equivalent of todays vehicles. There are Neons that would embarass the old Challengers today. Yes you could spend $45,000 to improve an old Challenger to todays standards, but then it is no longer THE old Challenger. Yes the body lines would be the same and you could have the interior re-sewn in leather to match the original. You can put a crate engine in it to get the performance you want. You could put on an aftermarket suspension to make it corner flat (although I could do amazing things with that crude torsion bar and leaf spring suspension), BUT you know you no longer have an original. I absolutely loved mine. Bought it at 17 years of age with my own hard earned money. I owned that car for 17 years and when we parted ways we had enjoyed over 100,000 (hard) and joyful miles together. Would I take her over a modern day equivalent-NO!
I will have a factory warranty and ALL the modern amenities with my NEW Challenger. I won't have to keep a ballast resistor in the glove box. (If you're over 40 you probably know what that is.) I won't have to add a half a quart of oil every 500-1000 miles. I won't have to worry about overheating or vapor lock or RUST! For my money I'll take the new Challenger and its supposed shortcomings. I think that this is a very faithful homage to the original without some of the quirks of the original. It lacks a few of the nuances of the original sure, but overall I think that the new Challenger has "IT" especially when compared to what else is out there. Remember the original Charger. At least they didn't screw it up that bad!
02-19-2008, 10:29 AM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
There is only one thing that disappoints me about the car. The performance.
http://www.stangbangers.com/07_Mustang_Brochure.pdf
When a $28K GT can match the performance of a $40K+ Challenger. Damn.
Not to mention you can get GT500 Mustangs for $45K off ebaymotors now. So prices are coming down on them. And they significantly outperform the Chally.
I had my heart set on the car but performance was #1 for me. And sadly, despite the fact it looks *awesome*, I can't justify it.
http://www.stangbangers.com/07_Mustang_Brochure.pdf
When a $28K GT can match the performance of a $40K+ Challenger. Damn.
Not to mention you can get GT500 Mustangs for $45K off ebaymotors now. So prices are coming down on them. And they significantly outperform the Chally.
I had my heart set on the car but performance was #1 for me. And sadly, despite the fact it looks *awesome*, I can't justify it.
02-19-2008, 11:00 AM
#47
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
I don't know why everyone is suddenly surprised at the performance. It's basically identical to the charger and we've pretty much known it would be since the concept was unveiled 2 years ago. I guess everyone expected a car with 90% charger components to somehow be much faster and way cheaper than an srt-8 charger. I'm not saying I don't wish they could have done more with what they had, but by basing the car on the platform they did there's not much more they could do. And if they hadn't used an already existing platform, we wouldn't have the car at all.
If you just want the performance and you think both a mustang and a challenger are equal in looks, it's pretty much a no brainer. Get a mustang.
If you just want the performance and you think both a mustang and a challenger are equal in looks, it's pretty much a no brainer. Get a mustang.
02-19-2008, 12:07 PM
#48
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location:
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
alright guys i posted this on redletterdodge couple weeks ago wen they released the specs.
in order to get a good estimate of what the challenger will do compared to the mustang you go buy a similar car with similar weight , power train, and transmission. In this case its the charger srt8.
the charger srt8 is suppose to do 0-60 in 5.1 sec. or 5 flat according to dodge (they said chally in 4.9).
As i was very into buying the srt8 for performance i researched from forum to forum and found out these cars are far beyond what dodge tells you they are. sort of how bmw underrates the 335i. well what i found through my research and forum trolling for about 2 years or so is that the charger srt8 stock does 0-60 in 4.8 avrg dead stock. most owners say it gets better as you learn how to launch and you start getting better grip on the roads. So my conclusion is that this car will be in the 0-60 4.7-4.8 basically high 4s due to it being shorter more aerodynamic and slightly lighter than the charger srt8 4 door. this car shouldnt even be compared to the gt this car is in competition with the gt500. yes i know the gt500 has more horsepower and goes 0-60 in 4.6 but thats the beauty of it and were the modification nuds like myself come in. this car will be close in numbers with the gt500 and it should be in the same category, save the gt comparisons for the R/T challenger which with the power gains from the new engines should be a good comparison to the gt.
so by saying a 28k mustang outperforms a 40k srt8 performance model makes me laugh... compare the gt with the new revamped 380hp hemi. the gt500 will slightly outperform the srt8 by .2 or .1 faster 0-60 . but with that extra 5k your wasting on ebay for the gt500 you can supercharge the challys 6.1 and it would be fair since the gt500 is supercharged and i will guarentee you youll be seeing many gt500s in your rear view mirror.
in order to get a good estimate of what the challenger will do compared to the mustang you go buy a similar car with similar weight , power train, and transmission. In this case its the charger srt8.
the charger srt8 is suppose to do 0-60 in 5.1 sec. or 5 flat according to dodge (they said chally in 4.9).
As i was very into buying the srt8 for performance i researched from forum to forum and found out these cars are far beyond what dodge tells you they are. sort of how bmw underrates the 335i. well what i found through my research and forum trolling for about 2 years or so is that the charger srt8 stock does 0-60 in 4.8 avrg dead stock. most owners say it gets better as you learn how to launch and you start getting better grip on the roads. So my conclusion is that this car will be in the 0-60 4.7-4.8 basically high 4s due to it being shorter more aerodynamic and slightly lighter than the charger srt8 4 door. this car shouldnt even be compared to the gt this car is in competition with the gt500. yes i know the gt500 has more horsepower and goes 0-60 in 4.6 but thats the beauty of it and were the modification nuds like myself come in. this car will be close in numbers with the gt500 and it should be in the same category, save the gt comparisons for the R/T challenger which with the power gains from the new engines should be a good comparison to the gt.
so by saying a 28k mustang outperforms a 40k srt8 performance model makes me laugh... compare the gt with the new revamped 380hp hemi. the gt500 will slightly outperform the srt8 by .2 or .1 faster 0-60 . but with that extra 5k your wasting on ebay for the gt500 you can supercharge the challys 6.1 and it would be fair since the gt500 is supercharged and i will guarentee you youll be seeing many gt500s in your rear view mirror.
02-19-2008, 01:04 PM
#49
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
I am sure when the 6.4 or 6.5 liter engine comes out in 2010 the performance numbers will get a little better in comparison with the GT500
02-20-2008, 06:04 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Sorry Mopar, This Challenger lacks "It"
For me it is pretty simple. Been a Mopar guy for over 25 years (own some old iron as well) and always wished Chrysler would build a real RWD muscle car. Who would have thought they'd bring back a "version" of the Hemi, plunk it in a completely retro body and soon to be 6 speed!
Yes, I'm disappointed on interior and the ram air butterflys biting the dust...but overall, I can't wait to get one of these puppies!!
Yes, I'm disappointed on interior and the ram air butterflys biting the dust...but overall, I can't wait to get one of these puppies!!