meh..seems like Corvette is the only American to keep it's waistline trim. It even got fat for several years.
meh..seems like Corvette is the only American to keep it's waistline trim. It even got fat for several years.
oh..and BTW, WTF is it with all this retro stuff? Can you imagine if Detroit had tried to make their late 60's stuff look like their late 20's stuff? I know the reason: Boomers. That's their target. I hate these cars with a passion
P71 wrote:
OK, I'll say it.
I like it much BETTER than the old ones.
Ok, so it's got a big a$$. I certainly don't think THAT'S a problem. 
I love the subtlety of the high belt line that blends into that great shoulder line under the B pillar, which had to be emphasized with paint on the original (and had no subtlety at all). They did a nice job of carrying the grill concept forward, while getting rid of that stupid looking skinny bumper and tucking the eyes up under the hood in a menacing way.
It is better grounded visually. The front air dam and the butt are closer to the ground. The original looked like 2 torpedos sticking out front and rear.
The tire/ wheel/ fender proportions are MUCH better. Love the tight wheel/ fender clearances. The top is chopped JUST enough to imply something cool, and they thankfully ditched those horrible chrome window, raingutter, and wheelwell trims.
The meats sit nicely on the ground- originals were too skinny. The side panels ground it nicely- The original rolled under too much and looked like it was sitting up on stilts.
The rear is not great (looks like a really fat 300ZX), but the original was no prize either (though I do prefer the rear of the original). Hate those original skinny bumpers.
Rear window's too small on the original (and the B pillar's too big), and I've got no love for that crease line on the rear deck. I also like the slight rake of the roofline on the new one, compared to the slight bubble top of the old one.
Besides...who can love a vinyl top??
classic challengers and 'cudas are by far my most favorite muscle cars. new challenger would be a whhhooole lot better if it was 2/3 the size it is now
Shaun wrote:96DXCivic wrote:I really dislike all of them, for me it is not to do with not liking retro, as I love the "retro' Mini, it is that all three miss the spirit of the originals and it speaks to a big chunk of the problem the big three got themselves into. The original muscle cars were stripped down versions picked out of their respective brand's product lines- usually the formula was to take a (for the time) small or medium sized car, stuff a big hot motor in it, sell it for a small premium. Many of them were put together specifically so the brand could be competitive in NASCAR or.NHRA. The "retro" mustang, camaro, and challenger are big cars that look puffy in an era when cars are starting to shrink and are quite apart from thier brands other offerings and maybe a privateer or two will race one of them on accident. They are focus group driven marketing exercises that look like cars from yesteryear. They are not enthusiast engineered cars for enthusiasts. i like the Cobalt SS and the Neon RT ALLOT more.93celicaGT2 wrote: Hate it. And the Camaro. And the Mustang. And the Charger. Whatever retro-style junk is out there. Hate it. Hate it. Hate it.I dislike the Camaro and the Mustang but they are terrible remakes. What is wrong with retro if it is done right? After all isn't the Miata basically just a retro version of original Elan?
Incorrect on a number of points. First, the Mustang, Camaro and Challenger were "Ponycars" and did not compete in Nascar. Some special versions(68 CobraJet Mustang, 69 ZL1 Camaros and 68 HemiCudas come to mind) were created for the drag racers-though they weren't marketed to the general public. An era "when cars are starting to shrink" Seriously? Compare and Accord or Civic to earlier versions. Nearly all nameplates that have lasted a number of years are far larger/heavier than the originals. "Race one of them on accident" Uh, no. There are entire series devoted to roadracing the new Mustangs, they are also locked in battle with BMW in another pro series, both Mopar and Ford have superstock versions of their cars available to racers and there is much buzz about all three appearing in a series very soon. "Not enthusiast engineered cars..." Really? You might have a drive in one of these 400hp cars before you write such a ridiculous statement. Serious brake packages, IRS(on two), Track Paks, 6 speeds, 170mph+ top speeds, lap times faster than many "traditional" sports cars, etc,etc,etc. You might want to rethink your position-or not, since it is the rare car that surpasses the Neon for setting the bar.
Chris_V wrote: I freaking LOVE the new Challenger, especially an R/T Classic in Plum Crazy. Way too many people comparing it to a pure sports car and saying "it sucks 'cause a Miata outcorners it." That's like doing a lot of towing with a pickup and saying a Miata sucks 'cause it can't tow a 4 horse trailer; it just SMACKS of ignorance and closed mindedness. The Challenger is retro, done as an homage to the original, with modern detailing and tech. The Mustang is not retro, as it is styled and engineered as if this is where the car would have gone under continuous evolvement. So much better than musclecars and ponycars back in the day. Both of them handle quite well (and better than many modded road racing versions of the old cars), stop excellent, make more power and get better fuel mileage and better emissions, while being safer. It's amazing, in fact. As for the roofline to side proportions, I've spent way too much time with chopped top '50s and '60s customs and street rods/hot rods. The challenger still has tall windows and excellent visibility in comparison to cars I've had no problem driving. Yeah, it's a little heavy, but my 740iL is heavier, handles great, and has much less power while still feeling rapid. While I like tiny cars, sports cars, etc, I guess I just have a different perspective on what's a valid performance car or not. I don't NEED a car to be a Caterham in order to be worth driving and having fun with.
Good post.
Chris V is the smartest guy in this thread.
Nashco wrote:grafmiata wrote: I like the looks of the new Challenger from about 50 feet. Any closer than that, the car just looks kinda frumpy to me. A buddy of mine just bought a 6-speed R/T. Nice car, but I kept up with him just fine in the turbo Miata that I bought for 1/10th of what he paid. And my car won't fall off the edge of the earth when it approaches a corner. When I started kidding him about this, he started bragging about the warranty his car came with. I told him he should stop buying new cars that are expected to fail. He still doesn't seem to see the humor in that comment.For what it's worth, a new Challenger R/T with manual trans isn't much more expensive than a Mazdaspeed Miata cost when it was new. I wouldn't say an old, modified Miata is very comparable to a new Challenger...that'd be like somebody else telling you their sportbike cost half as much as your Miata and could run circles around your Miata. Not really a valid comparison, even if the statement is true. Bryce
I agree with what you're saying. However, when I posted that, I was too tired to type about how the whole New Challenger - vs. - Old Miata thing came about.
Basically, the guy with the R/T is one of my best friends. Therefore, whatever decision one of us makes, the other will endlessly question and ridicule said decision. He still thinks I'm an idiot for having a 2-stroke margarita blender, yet as soon as the weather gets nice he starts bugging me to bring it to his place on the lake.
Anywho, after a couple months of my buddy blowing me crap because he couldn't understand why I'd pay 3-grand for a car with no sound insulation, carpet, or top, he bought his new Challenger... And his direct quote for why he bought it was "because I wanted the fastest car in the lot at work".
Well, for the Helluvit, we went from a roll in 2nd-gear up to about 100... He's not the "fastest car in the lot."
He obviously forgot about several other cars there that I know are faster than anything he or I bring to the table.
At work on Wednesday, he pulled into the space next to me, got out of his car and flipped me off. (normal greeting). When he shut his door, the driver's side mirror glass fell out and shattered on the pavement. I gave him a ride home from work this morning when his remote-key thingy crapped out. He has a good argument about the warranty, and he was actually able to laugh about it this time.
Long story longer, I don't hate the Challenger... I guess I'm just kind of indifferent to them. But for those who like them, wait a couple years for someone else to take the depreciation-hit, then you should be able to get a pretty good deal on one.
""
I had a 71 Challenger in high school. Looking back, I loved it then but it was not a quality car. So much went wrong with it. The interior was cheap and plasticky, it rattled horribly, things fell off of it etc. Both exterior door handles broke off for crying out loud! If it rained it wouldn't start with out doing the old screw driver down the carb trick......no FI back then. Try doing that on a date in the rain. Rust was a major issue. It was what originally turned me on to imports. People look back fondly on these cars and frankly they just weren't that great.
Bottom line: The older ones may look or seem better but the new ones are probably better in every possible way.........just way to porky.
So hot.
I just like hotlinking pics of old race cars...
P71 wrote:
<3
I really like the look of it but I too think it is a little too big, just like the newest Tbird that was based on the LS.
I really don't understand why cars keep getting bigger and bigger. Take Honda for example. The Civic used to be the small Honda but it kept growing and growing so they had to come up with the Fit. How long will it take for the Fit to grow too big? Look at the size of the original Altima and the new one. What is the reason? I really am curious.
Americans are getting fatter. 
81gtv6 wrote: I really like the look of it but I too think it is a little too big, just like the newest Tbird that was based on the LS. I really don't understand why cars keep getting bigger and bigger. Take Honda for example. The Civic used to be the small Honda but it kept growing and growing so they had to come up with the Fit. How long will it take for the Fit to grow too big? Look at the size of the original Altima and the new one. What is the reason? I really am curious.
Every manufacturer is going this way. My friend and I talk about it all the time. My theory is that dumb people liked their 1995 Altima coming out of college but they needed a bigger car when it died...hey look! the new Altima is bigger! yay! SOLD. Now Nissan needs a 1995 Altima...
How about the new BMW 3 series, called the 1 series...which so happens to be HEAVIER than the E36.
I hate it but them's the breaks.
By the way, the new Challenger is by far my most favorite car that I will never own. Not that I can't afford it, I just don't want it...but I love it! get it?:)
Someone mentioned the Challenger shares the 300 etc platform, that is correct. Chrysler calls it the 'LX' and it was shortened a small amount for the Challenger.
From the side and front, it looks great. From the rear, it's too tall and there's no chrome bumper to add to the illusion of width. It's also heavy as hell. Other than looks, absolutely nothing about it appeals to me.
The latest Mustang is pretty cool looking and seems better proportioned than the Challenger. I like it better (particularly the nose treatment) and if I were actually in the market for such a thing it would be at the top of my list.
The new Camaro looks like a pack of razor blades mated with a '69 Camaro and a '69 Corvette in some sort of unholy gangbang. The proportions are completely wrong (for instance the 'greenhouse' is WAY too short), as is just about everything else styling wise. The nose and tail are shaped a bit like a '69 Camaro (one of my all time favorite designs BTW) but where the hell did the quad taillights come from? I mean, that is just WRONG. Throw in those fender ridges which look like they were scraped off of a Stingray and nothing- and I mean NOTHING- works together.
[/URL]" />
Powar wrote:P71 wrote:<3
That's my car. Here's what it looks like today.
[URL=http://img22.imageshack.us/i/challengernewold014.jpg/]
[/URL]
I like all 3 retro cars, save the 2010 Mustang fom the rear. I have test driven all of them and came to the same conculsion. I can't see out of them. Big fat a-pillars and tiny mirrors. Plus seats that are on the floor and a beltline I could rest my chin on. I feel like a 85 year old grandma peering over the dash. Didn't have these issues with the 60's and 70's versions of these cars. All to expensive for me anyhow....
forzav12 wrote: That's my car. Here's what it looks like today. [URL=http://img22.imageshack.us/i/challengernewold014.jpg/]
Are you saying that you own the Kowalski car?
Powar wrote:forzav12 wrote: That's my car. Here's what it looks like today. [URL=http://img22.imageshack.us/i/challengernewold014.jpg/]Are you saying that you own the Kowalski car?
I think he does own it. Pretty damn awesome! How about some more pictures Forzav12?
Forza does indeed own a Vanishing Point car, and many, many other wicked awesome cars.
Forza really needs to fill out his readers' rides section. Wicked awesome cars are to be admired by others 
Yep, from what I've seen on some other forums he has a killer collection.
Dont have time to go through the whole thread but regarding the pics on the first page:
Putting pics of one lowered on aftermarket rims and the other one completely stock is not a good comparison.
Look at this pic i had on a cardomain page years ago:
lowering and wheels can change a car..
I love the old Challenger don't get me wrong. It is one of my favorite of one muscle cars. I like the new Challenger much more then the Camaro or Mustang partly because it does a much better job capturing the spirit of the original. And Forzav12, you are my new hero.
You'll need to log in to post.
