Newer "Mopars"

landon1 · Post by **landon1** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:15 am

they could've done better...like the steering wheel (yuck) and gauges(yuck). i mean come on now, that's what the driver HAS to see almost all the time....the one cool thing....that chrome "slapstik" type shifter...they need a pistol grip darn it

RS23-71 · Post by **RS23-71** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:22 am

I mean my friend that has a 2007 mustang I thought it was an awesome car... good classic mustang style lines.... nice updated interior and such. Only down side is it is a Ford.

I personally don't know that much about the new challenger except it has the classic lines like the original challenger and it wasn't like the newer charger that looks nothing like the older charger.

I just prefer anything that looks like original musclecars. Lets just call them a 2009 tribute car.

{edit} It could be worse they could have given it the neon body style and called it a challenger

Smellslike1974 · Post by **Smellslike1974** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:44 am

Im glad plymouth is no more,i actually think they were smart,they didnt try bringing back their older cars,so they didnt make them selves look bad,and they made vans which no one was really focused on.Those clever sneaky snakes.

patrick · Post by **patrick** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:10 am

Okay, so the Subaru STI is a muscle car then. That's what I always thought. Cool!

Anyway, I agree that the "fun" may be a little removed from the new Challenger. Sure, you'll feel like Jesse James in the driver seat and may even have the horsepower to boot, but there's something about headliner lint falling onto me and my car wandering into different lanes like it's some sort of land yacht and the smell of unburned fuel sneaking into the engine compartment that you can't compare. No, seriously! It's a rawness that new cars don't have. They're refined and precise and can stop and corner, and mine is just shear raw horsepower and that's about it. But I love it anyway.

I agree the metal shouldn't have to be as thick. Who cares? I mean with all the federally mandated safety regulations, the metal doesn't NEED to be as thick and it would only weigh it down further anyway. I give the car a break on weighing so much because first off, it's frickin' huge, huger than you think, and secondly, all the mandatory safety stuff. Hell, my own '73 RR probably weighs 4000 lbs.

Anyway, I'll probably get the new Challenger as a daily driver, but the middle-of-the-road R/T, later in the year. Dunno. Depends on price.

billzilla · Post by **billzilla** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:19 am

No, the STi is a sport sedan or sport compact... Or rally car, if you prefer. But certainly not a musclecar, at least not by most people's definition. Doesn't mean they're not good cars, of course. I'm fond of the Outback Turbo, myself. That's a NICE little wagon.

I'm not saying a car needs to have thick metal to be a musclecar, either. Just saying that older cars that have it won't rust as quickly. Cars that are big chunks of solid steel tend to last longer. I do see more 60's and early 70's cars on the road than mid to late 70's, but maybe that's me.

Anyway, I like the new Challenger, myself. Its styling is far more evocative of the earlier cars than the Charger, that's for sure. It'll be fun to see the various paint schemes and such on the R/T. With the Magnum, Charger, 300C and Challenger, Chrysler has really returned to at least a semblance of their earlier glory with some truly cool American rides.

ct71rr · Post by **ct71rr** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:48 pm

Am I missing something here, call it what you want "muscle car", "tribute car", "performance car" or "rama-lama-dingdong" it doesn't really matter to me. It's still a great looking car with two doors, big V8, great handling and I wont have to worry about getting stranded with my four and one year old on the side of the road.

Part of the reason it appears so large is that the designers had to meet federal safety standards for side impacts. I have seen it in person at two seperate events. It does not appear to be any bigger than a new mustang, in my opinion. There was also a huge crowd around it both times as well.

Finally Chrysler steps to the plate and produces what we have been asking for for the past 20+ years and it seems the biggest complaint is that "it's not really a muscle car".

Mid size platform+two doors+big V8 does not = muscle car??????
Just because of the year it was produced?????

As far as the new Charger, a guy down the street from me has a black one with SRT hood and new style cragar SS rims. He also changed all the badging to 1968-1973 style. I think his car looks bad-ass. And this is coming from someone who did not like the looks of the new Charger when it was first released. I guess it has kind of grown on me.

aerodynamic · Post by **aerodynamic** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:17 pm

"....so what's going to happen when someone wants to restore a oh idk let's say a K Car"

That's hillarious...it'll be a Kold day in hell when I restore one of those, lol!!

billzilla · Post by **billzilla** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:58 pm

I like the Charger design (especially with the new striping and interesting retro color combos). I just don't think it's terribly reminiscent of the old models. I wish they'd adopted a more retro approach to the styling like the concept they shopped around, but that's just me.

I totally agree musclecars aren't defined by their number of doors or whether they're 40 years old or not. Everybody has their own view of what constitutes a musclecar, sports car, performance car.

I'll say one thing - I DON'T like 'DUB' or 'DONK' crap. I've seen some 300's, Magnums and Chargers with RIDICULOUS looking wheels and tires, lately.

Post by **Eric** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:37 pm

Ok, here's the definition of muscle car on Wikepedia.....remember, if it's on the internet it must be true!!!

A muscle car is an automobile with a high horse power engine, modest weight, capable of producing high levels of acceleration. The term principally refers to American, Australian and South African models and generally describes a 2-door rear wheel drive mid-size car with a large, powerful V8 engine and special trim, intended for maximum torque on the street or in drag racing competition. It is distinguished from sports cars, which were customarily considered smaller, two-seat cars, or GTs, two-seat or 2+2 cars intended for high-speed touring and possibly road racing. High-performance full-size or compact cars are arguably excluded from this category, as are the breed of compact sports coupes inspired by the Ford Mustang. Other factors used in defining classic muscle cars are their age and country of origin. A classic muscle car is usually made in the U.S. or Australia between 1964 and 1975. The term "muscle car" did not enter common usage until after production of the cars had essentially ended. It is generally accepted that popular, widespread usage of the term took hold by the early to mid-1980s. During their heyday, print media usually referred to this class of vehicle as "supercars".

Smellslike1974 · Post by **Smellslike1974** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:41 pm

Now that thats settled..What we gonna talk about now?

aerodynamic · Post by **aerodynamic** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:43 pm

Hell, I'm just happy to be included in that year range (if not the high horsepower criteria)!

landon1 · Post by **landon1** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:33 pm

"Part of the reason it appears so large is that the designers had to meet federal safety standards for side impacts. I have seen it in person at two seperate events. It does not appear to be any bigger than a new mustang, in my opinion. There was also a huge crowd around it both times as well"

The Challenger is basically a 2 door magnum, charger, 300, whatever you wanna call it...it completely dwarfs the original challenger the way a new charger dwarfs a mustang...the mustang is actually considered "subcompact"...the back seat is more useless than my hyundai accent i had, and it outweighs it by a lot of poundage

bandman · Post by **bandman** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:30 am

Has anyone from the site sat in a new Mustang? I just walked by one at the local walmart last week and I could not believe how little room there was inside. I honestly thought that my wifes Neon has more leg and cargo room. I wouldn't be caught dead in one.

What about the new Camaro. I saw a picture of it in one of the many car magazines, and my stomach actually turned. My first car was a '78 Z28
(I know, don't pick on me). At least that car had personality plus it was a 350 4speed.

I think the Challenger puts those pretenders to shame. Looks good and will be comfortable and safe enough for the long haul. I think the body lines are sexy, and I'm all about that. I hope the bunny doesn't pick on me.......

landon1 · Post by **landon1** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:54 am

i have a new stang and i like it...the front is comfortable(probably not for anyone over 6'4 or over 250 pounds though. i never use the back seat...i've never really used the back seat in any of my cars, except when i'd throw my backpack there when i was in high school and college. it's definitely not a car for 4 people, but was a mustang ever really supposed to fit 4 fullsize adults? it can be done and it's not too bad (3 buddies and i went on a lil road trip about 100 miles or so and it wasn't too bad.)

ct71rr · Post by **ct71rr** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:11 am

My understanding is that the interior is the same size as the Charger. Which means, I will be able to put both car seats back there with no problems. Just more ammunition to use against the wife...