RoswellGrey

I've gotta admit, having had both a 1970 and a 2009, I agree with what this guy says (I bolted a couple things for emphasis).


1970-1974 Dodge Challenger
by Chris Hafner on September 17, 2008

The new Dodge Challenger is an undeniably nice piece of equipment. With a stiff rear-wheel-drive platform and two powerful Hemi engines shared with the Dodge Charger, Chrysler 300, and the late, lamented Dodge Magnum, the Challenger brings burly and belligerent American muscle to the performance car table. It is faster and more comfortable than the legendary original, and can actually change directions from time to time.

And yet ... and yet, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Born in 1970 as Dodge's incredibly late entry to the pony car market dominated by the Ford Mustang and Chevrolet Camaro, and populated by the Plymouth Barracuda, AMC Marlin, Pontiac Firebird, and Mercury Cougar, the Challenger made up for its lateness with raw power and what passed at the time for luxury.

The Camaro could be had with a big-block 396, and the Mustang sported the incredibly sweet 428 and 429 Cobra Jet engineshero engines all. With the Challenger, however, Dodge went nuclear. Sure, a customer could purchase a Challenger armed with Mopar's conventional weaponsvarious derivations of the 318, 340, 360, and 383 enginesbut the real news was the availability of the legendary 426 Hemi and the 440 Six Pack.

This sledgehammer thrust powered a car slightly larger and more luxurious than the Mustang and Camaro of the day, a car more comparable to Mercury's Mustang-based Cougar. The package was cloaked in some of the prettiest, most iconic American performance car styling of all time. Blunt and brutalyet somehow gracefulthe Challenger produced the visual horsepower to match the thunder under the hood.

In response to the Camaro Z/28 and Mustang Boss 302, Dodge released its own small-engined lightweight street Trans Am racersthe Challenger T/A. The T/A sported a unique six-barrel 340 V-8, an upgraded suspension, some interior upgrades, and a flat black hood. The T/A didn't handle as nicely as the Z/28 or Boss 302, the Trans Am race car wasn't particularly successful, and the small-displacement engine meant it wasn't as fast in a straight line as its big-block brothers, but its rarity has made it popular in the collector market.

The similar Plymouth Barracuda gets more play among enthusiasts, but to me, the Challenger's lovely looks put it in a class of its own among American cars of this era. Both in the 1970-1971 original and 1972-1974 "sad face" grille styles, and whether in full wild-color-and-stripe regalia or understated solid colors, the Challenger looked bad.

Unfortunately, Dodge's timing could not have been worse. The 1970 model year is widely considered the apex of the muscle car era; pollution standards, rising insurance rates, and gas shortages made big-engined performance cars rapidly extinct. Like every other muscle car and pony car, the Challenger's performance was rapidly eviscerated in the early 1970s, leaving behind a lot of show and very little go.

The new Challenger has the benefit of 38 years of technology, but it still can't touch the original's gravitas. Consider the glowering, threatening presence and the raw, viscera-scarring sound and potency of the Hemi or Six Pack. Sure, pavement-warping performance was central to the muscle car era, but intimidation was just as important. The original Challenger had intimidation in spades.

Purists will grit their teeth at this, but there was yet another Dodge Challengera rebadged Mitsubishi-made Plymouth Sapporo that graced the United States with its anonymous four-cylinder presence in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I have a predictable soft spot in my heart for the Sapporo Challenger, but by any rational measure that car was an awful stain on the proud Challenger name.


Chris H.

epegasus

[8D]Spoken like a man who doesn't own an SRT8.

tskatz

Spoken like a man or woman who owns no muscle car what so ever.

epegasus

I remember my 64 Galaxie 500 with the HiPo 289 and 3 speed column shift. I remember my cousin's 67 Mustang but I don't recall which motor. Then there was a mid seventies Monte Carlo, GTX W/big block wedge, and. My dad had so many Chevy 350 cars I can't stand them anymore. None of them had 425 HP or 420 ft/lbs or could launch without wrapping the rear end into a knot or shift without throwing your shoulder out or you elbowing the back seat passengers in the foreheads going for second gear. The tires sucked and were responsible for a number of wrecks. And let's not even talk about creature comforts. To me the new Challenger intimidates way more than any other modern muscle and just as much as the 70's cars.

RoswellGrey

Spoken like a man or woman who doesn't know what "gravitas" means. A definition: "Gravitas (from Latin) is a quality of substance or depth of personality."

In other words, the coolness factor. Strictly on looks alone, the 70 was WAY cooler than the modern Challenger. The modern car is a good-looking car for its era, but compared to the original model, it's a bloated hulk. That alone detracts from its coolness, and all the computerized, fuel-injected performance enhancements in the world ain't gonna help that. It's a shame they couldn't have remade the car to actually look like the original model.

epegasus

Well, I always thought the original cars had way too much front and rear over-hang. And the wheels were inset to the point being distracting. That's why I preferred Mustangs. I really didn't like Challenger, or Cudas unless they modified with larger, wider wheels and tires. To each there own, though.

brentmannrt09

I have to disagree! Yes the 70 was a great looking car but take nothing away form the 08/09's I think they are every bit as cool and tough looking as the originals Heck thats why I bought one! with just a slight squint it looks just like the original! I thought they stayed as true as they could to the original given todays safety standards they have to meet. I agree with Jay Lenos take on it.

Paladin06

I've set by many a 1970 at carshows and even the owners of the 70's car like the new look better. Not to mention the power, handling and all the bells and whistles.

novawagonmaster

I believe the old body style had a little more character, but the new one looks more intimidating.
I love old cars, but they looked (and handled) like elephants on roller skates. I am a big fan of the "Pro Touring" movement (whether it is still in fashion or not) because it creates a lower and wider look. The new Challenger already has that look.

BLK 6050

One thing about memories, the farther back in the past they are, the better they seem...one of the benefits to growing older, right RoswellGrey? Funny how the past takes on a whole new image of things being much better than they currently are today. We tend to look at the past through rose colored classes, forgetting many of the bad details, replacing those memories with only the good. Well I have to say that I have to disagree with you in regards to the old Challenger being better than the new Challenger...It has the look and feel of the 70 without many of the short-coming that all muscle cars from that period of time had, such as poor brakes, handling, tires, and engines that needed almost constant attention if you hoped to get the best performance. And, let's not forget about quality control that was almost non existent.
As far as the new Challenger being a bloated hulk....yes the new Challenger is a big heavy car....but you seem to forget that the original Challenger was based on a shorted B-body chassis (sounds like the current Challenger being based on a shortened LX chassis) and it was the heaviest pony car of the day....sound familiar? And, it's big size gives it a "useable" rear seat, and trunk...something the original never had.
Bottomline, a copy of the original would never sell today in the numbers needed to make a profit....and with all the safety regs. and such...could never be built and sold in todays world. No, the new Challenger is no 70 Challenger....but that's a good thing.....two very different cars for two very different times....
(By the way I owned two 1970 RT/SEs a 383 and a 440 back in the day.....wouldn't trade my 08 for a 70 today...well...maybe...no, wouldn't do it...it's those old memories...)