You are here: Forums Sedans Dodge Charger Charger R/T and Charger difference

Charger R/T and Charger difference

10 messages,  Last post on Apr 18, 2006 at 10:17 AM

You are in the Dodge Charger Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Dodge Charger

Messages Page 2 of 2 1 2 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#3 of 10 Re: Charger R/T and charger difference [Mr_Shiftright] by likefire Jul 03, 2005 (9:29 am)
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Jul 03, 2005 7:39 am) I appreciate the reponse, i ordered the book from amazon after i signed up, i am looking forward to the book, thanks. anymore replys would be appreciated, thank you!
#4 of 10 R/T by tex10 Jul 18, 2005 (2:51 pm)
I thought R/T only had hemis, 440 and 440 6packs
#5 of 10 Charger RT by herc Sep 23, 2005 (5:17 pm)
Tex10 is correct. The 1969s came with 440s, but they also had the 426 Hemi as an option. Yes, they came stock with a 4 spd manual. While the 4 spds are a hoot, many people preferred the automatic for racing. After 1971 the Charger RT was history (until 2006 of course). In 1972 it was the 340 Magnum and 440 Magnum as the hot models but the horsepower dropped significantly. After 1973 the 440 was dropped. A 400 was available but it was pretty much a boat anchor. Even though the 340 was down to 240 HP by 1973 it was the better engine choice if you really want to drive the car. By 1974 even the 340 was gone.   The first thing we need to learn is that Dodge is a great brand and we car lovers call them Mopars. This is just a suggestion...if you're interested in testing the waters by restoring a Mopar, it's helpful to start with one having a small block engine. The reason is that parts are more readily available and they cost less. Plus the small blocks can really spin the RPMs and take a beating. The big blocks are more temperamental, run hotter, use a LOT more fuel, and are generally a little more difficult to work on. Best of luck to you! Replies to this message: Mr_Shiftright (Sep 24, 2005 7:47 am)
#6 of 10 Re: Charger RT [herc] by Mr_Shiftright HOST Sep 24, 2005 (7:47 am)
Replying to: herc (Sep 23, 2005 5:17 pm) That's good advice. The Mopar big blocks, meaning the 440s and 426, etc. are really no fun in daily street driving. What you get is sort of a typical huge displacement, high compression behavior....you step on the gas and your neck gets snapped one way, and then you let off the gas to brake and your neck goes the other way. An automatic (heresy?) might help this.   Lots of folks are building clones, too. You can take a bare bones 318 coupe and build it the way you like with various engines, trans and trim pieces...and you don't have to sweat bullets every time you take it somewhere because it is more easily replaceable.
#7 of 10 Dodge Chargers by 440rt Oct 01, 2005 (9:42 pm)
It is fun reading what others think of the Dodge Chargers. I own a 1972 SE with a 400, and 727 Auto. The other one is a 1971 R/T, 4spd, dana trac/pak car. One comment I would make on the 400 engine is it may be a boat anchor in it's stock condition, but it can be bought at a reasonable price, and modified easily into a quick car. Here's how....Edelbrock Heads, 9.5 compression pistons, and a hotter cam. That will add 100 plus hp. If that is not enough a 440 modified crankshaft goes in, and it becomes a 451. I agree that the big blocks are not the best daily drivers, but when the sun is shining, and a friend says lets go for a ride you know the R/T rolls out of the garage. When we hit third gear, and that beast breaks the tires loose you know there are two guys in there grinning ear to ear.
#8 of 10 High-Performance for Your Money by steve_ HOST Apr 17, 2006 (5:36 pm)
"Of all the major auto manufacturers, DaimlerChrysler seems to have done the best job of keeping the true cost to own its vehicles within close range of their market prices. Most of the Chrysler vehicles, as well as many of the standard Mercedes-Benz vehicles, fall in terms of cost either right along or just below the ownership status quo."   True Cost vs. Value (Inside Line)   Steve, Host
#9 of 10 In agreement by scottmandrake Apr 18, 2006 (9:51 am)
I agree with steve on that one for sure. They have also managed to stay on top with the rest of the automotive manufacturers without being "in your face" about it. I have seen a lot of custom chargers being produced by small builders and the like, which is great considering it hasn't been out very long this year. scott. Replies to this message: steve_ (Apr 18, 2006 10:17 am)
#10 of 10 Re: In agreement [scottmandrake] by steve_ HOST Apr 18, 2006 (10:17 am)
Replying to: scottmandrake (Apr 18, 2006 9:51 am) Glad you liked it, but the two Phils wrote the blurb so I can't take any credit. I just linked the story.   Looks like you need to set up your page and post some pics of your own rides. Just log in with your user name and password and you're in.   Steve, Host

Messages Page 2 of 2 1 2 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Sedans Dodge Charger Charger R/T and Charger difference