You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

659 messages,  Last post on Jun 21, 2006 at 2:03 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Dodge

Messages Page 14 of 67 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 67 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#125 of 659 Re: [grbeck] by dustyk Jan 17, 2005 (11:29 am)
Replying to: grbeck (Jan 17, 2005 10:48 am) One could argue that "muscle cars" existed before 1957. There were Chryslers prior to 1955 with hemispherical engines that produced robust performance for the time. Going back further was Buick's supercharged Special of 1938. There were of course Marmons, Cords, Dusenberg's, and Packard Roadsters of the early to mid-thirties that had "high performance" engines.   Dusty
#126 of 659 Andre... by grbeck Jan 17, 2005 (11:39 am)
...you didn't think I'd forget about the Rambler, did you? Somebody has to remember poor old AMC.   dustyk: I guess it depends on how one defines "muscle car."   To me, a muscle car should at least have a unique name, trim and drivetrain compared to its more pedestrian counterparts.   Many people, for example, consider the first Olds 88 to be the first "muscle car." I view it as a regular model that offered exceptional performance for the time, thanks to its ohv V-8.   The first Olds muscle car, in my view, was the F-85 based Jetfire of 1962-63.
#127 of 659 by stickguy Jan 17, 2005 (12:05 pm)
I thought a muscle car was supposed to be a smaller-sized car with a big engine, and little else. That is, only the stuff required to go fast. Like a Road Runner with dog dish caps, vinyl bench, etc.   Actually, the Shelby Charger probably fit the profile pretty well, if you have a broad enough mind to be flexible about engine and drivetrain layout. Small car stuffed with big power (relative), designed to go fast without too much unneccesary stuff on it, and there you go.
#128 of 659 My idea of a muscle car... by andre1969 Jan 17, 2005 (1:09 pm)
would be essentially any-sized car, whether it be compact, mid-size, or full-size, but with a high performance engine and beefed up handling. Now sometimes they can make a smaller car fast by just dropping in the engine from a bigger car. For instance, the Olds 88s that used 98 V-8's, or the Buick Centurys which used Roadmaster V-8's.   However, those particular V-8's aren't high-performance specialty engines. Just bigger engines in smaller bodies, and they went faster by virtue of having less weight to push.   However the 1955 Chrysler C300 used a special, high-performance 331 Hemi that put out 300 hp. IIRC, the regular 331 Hemi in the New Yorker and Imperial only put out 250 hp. And I think the Windsor only had a 301 poly.   Same with the DeSoto Adventurer and Plymouth Fury for '56. Now, some people will argue that you can't have a full-sized muscle car, but I don't agree with that. First off, a '64 GTO, which is a muscle car, rides a wheelbase the same length as a '56 Fury. 115 inches. Furthermore, I think a '64 GTO is about the same length! And something like a 1973 GTO is going to weigh nearly as much as a '57 Chrysler 300C or DeSoto Adventurer. Replies to this message: andys120 (Jan 17, 2005 1:38 pm)
#129 of 659 Re: My idea of a muscle car... [andre1969] by andys120 Jan 17, 2005 (1:38 pm)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 17, 2005 1:09 pm) Valid points Andre but I think it depends on who you're talking to. Since the GTO started the "Muscle Car Era" it's generally considered by most enthusiasts to have set the template for the "classic" Muscle cars i.e. a big ( least 350 cid)V8, intermediate-sized coupe or convertible body.   If someone wants to consider a '96 Impala SS or a '64 426 Fury a Muscle car, I can understand that but it doesn't fit the orthodox definition. The were lots of perfectly good performance cars that don't quite fit the "accepted criteria:   Some were based on compacts, not intermediates-- Chevy Nova SS/327/396, Studebaker Lark R3, Dodge Dart Swinger 318/383.   Many were pony car-based: Camaro SS 427/396, Boss Mustang 429   A lot were based on full -sizers: Galaxie 406/427, Fury 383/426 Hemi.   Is a '62 Biscayne 4dr with a b-post a "muscle car".? It is if you want it to be and it could outrun many of the classics.
#130 of 659 Hoo wee by andyman73 Jan 17, 2005 (4:59 pm)
Lots of good rides there! Things sure have changed. I suppose the SRT-8 300C would classify as a muscle car. Bigger but hipo powerplant with suspension and brake upgrades. Hopefully that 6.1 will find its way into the Charger, too. What's the going price on the SRT-8? 39-40K? Would change the horsepower performance wars bigtime. Especially at that price! You will have to double the cost to get the same from the Old World manufacturers.
#131 of 659 andy by seminole_kev Jan 17, 2005 (6:17 pm)
well one could argue that Chrysler and Dodge products are now part of the "Old World Manufacturers"
#132 of 659 Seminole by andyman73 Jan 17, 2005 (10:55 pm)
Well, I was hoping to avoid that connection! LOL
#133 of 659 Love this Message Board by jtrik Jan 18, 2005 (8:53 am)
I have to say how much fun i have reading this board lately. I love some of the passion of the anti Charger crowd, although i believe it's a hair misdirected, but it's their opinion and it is great. I've also enjoyed the other sides arguments, and now it's evolved into the muscle car debate...just love it.   Someone mentioned AMC...I've always been a fan of the underdog and i've always made my purchase of cars different from the mass produced stuff...Since Chrysler swallowed up AMC, do they have the names of AMC as well? Javelin would be a great name to bring back..imho..
#134 of 659 From what I've heard... by andre1969 Jan 18, 2005 (10:14 am)
I think the SRT-8 version of the Chrysler 300C is going to start off at around $50,000. On one hand, when you figure that it's not hard to load up a regular 300C to $40K+, even if they do start at $32,995 or whatever, maybe the $50K is a pretty good deal.   However, I think in 0-60 it gets you down from just under 6 seconds to just under 5. It's wonderful for bragging rights, but I dunno if it's really worth the extra money. I know I wouldn't pay it!

Messages Page 14 of 67 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 67 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.