AF: Dodge Challenger | Page 195 | Allpar Forums
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dodge Challenger

Discussion in 'New Challenger, 300, Magnum, Charger' started by hemi_magnum, Nov 21, 2005.

  1. fleshwound_NPG

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes:
    0
  2. 04RAMSRT10

    04RAMSRT10 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    678
    Likes:
    113
    This is good timing for me. Yesterday my children and I went over to Atlnata Motor Speedway to the North Ga. Mopar Club show. The turn out was good not great but the weather was wet so I think that played a part. There were some really nice cars in the show. In the afternoon, it dried out enough to get on the track. We went in the 2006 Charger Daytona that I bought for my son 2 1/2 years ago. The on track was more fun than you can imagine. We have been on a road course at speed before but not a high banked oval. We were all allowed the opportunity to get some really good speed up in the cruise. On the track was a 69 Daytone with a big bad 440. This was a nice car. The owner would nail it, exhaust told the story, and this modern 5.7 Hemi would respond in equal speed to maintain distance and not loose ground. The handle and brakes are far better. This is a great car and the Challenger will be even better. Here is another good point, the car was filled with premium fuel before we headed out, drove the 140 miles to and from the track plus the 8 hot laps and a considerable amount of idling and the average was 19.4 mpg. NOT BAD!
     
  3. JohnRogers

    JohnRogers Paper Tag Rubicon

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,729
    Likes:
    390
    Dang, like many others I say keep driving! Kolwalski would!

    FOOL, don't you know it turns into crap imediately after Americans get their hands on it. ;)
     
  4. JohnRogers

    JohnRogers Paper Tag Rubicon

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,729
    Likes:
    390
    No surprise our car is getting mostly top reviews but I really like how this dude capped his review.

    http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?re...section=reviews
     
  5. oharman

    oharman Active Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    209
    Likes:
    20
  6. PAMoparMan

    PAMoparMan MoPaR oR No CaR

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2004
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes:
    112
  7. Nick_Neon

    Nick_Neon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    78
    Likes:
    0
    Is the Challenger based on the same platform as the 300 and Charger? Will it have the same gearbox on the 3.5 as those cars?
     
  8. giddyupgo

    giddyupgo Guest


    The platform is the same as that of the Charger, only the Challenger 's platform is a few inches shorter. Visiting the Dodge site, it lists the Charger and the Challenger having the same 4 speed automatic with the same 3.5 L 250 hp v6 engine.
     
  9. woodstock

    woodstock New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    0
    [quote name='OJ's Dakota' post='954932' date='May 5 2008, 04:23 AM']OH THE HUMANITY!!!!! :([/quote]


    Now that they have crashed the vanishing point Challenger, I bet now they wish that they had taken a couple hundred pounds out of the car

    Can't fool mother Physics.
     
  10. Stratuscaster

    Stratuscaster Vaguely badass...
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    43,889
    Likes:
    6,641
    I must have missed where they stated that excess weight was the cause of the crash.
     
  11. woodstock

    woodstock New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    0
    Unless there is some component failure, excess momentum is the cause of just about every crash. That's what makes it a crash. It might be mass or velocity that was in excess, but the combination is what makes a crash. Since they drove the car 200 miles, I'm ruling out component failure. Reduce momentum and you reduce the probability of a crash by reducing stopping distance, or giving the driver greater ability to change direction and avoid an obstacle. Reduce mass, velocity or both. Can be applied to just about every crash, and likely to the Challenger crash. But I'm sure that you knew all that.

    Ever visit a junkyard? A great many cars are smashed in the front. I would say most - in my unscientific observations. I always think, nice car, too bad. If that car was lighter, and had better brakes, it might not be here. I hope that the people inside were OK. I say light cars, big brakes. Insurance companies should offer discounts for Brembos. (They offer them for anti-lock brakes).
     
  12. georgejetson

    georgejetson Ordo Templi Moparis
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    2,351
    Likes:
    153

    Hey Bob, the guy is way off base, but this idea that one can't complain about a car unless one has an engineering degree and a job in the industry is silly.
     
  13. thrashard340

    thrashard340 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    149
    Likes:
    0
    Interesting theory. Can you supply statistics?
     
  14. giddyupgo

    giddyupgo Guest


    I didn't know how technical of an answer Nick_Neon wanted, so Nick_Neon I'll tell you all I know of the platforms and maybe Bob_Sheaves can add to it.The Challenger has a wheelbase of 116" where as the Charger has a wheelbase of 120". Both cars borrow platform components from the Mercedes E class platform. Both the Charger and the Challenger platform is designed to accommodate a V6 or a V8. Both the Charger and the Challenger use short and long arm front suspension with coil springs and a sway bar. In the rear, both cars use a 5 link independent suspension with coil springs. I'm pretty sure that a rear sway bar is standard on both platforms whether a V6 or a V8. Bob, any thing you can add to this I'm sure Nick_Neon would appreciate it, 'cause that's all I know.
     
  15. Dave Z

    Dave Z It's me, Dave
    Staff Member Level III Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2001
    Messages:
    34,628
    Likes:
    20,005
    A police Charger stops faster than a Plymouth Reliant that weighs a bit more than half as much.

    Anyway, I don't know why Chrysler keeps feeding Autoblog if they get so nasty - pointlessly so. This is almost certainly going to turn out as driver error. One Lap does have the occasional crash. ..

    Rick Ehrenberg won it once, I believe in a Duster.
     
  16. Nick_Neon

    Nick_Neon New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    78
    Likes:
    0
    Ive too heard the 300 is based loosely on the last generation E-Class, and always assumed that given the size similarities and engine line-up both the charger and the 300 were more or less the same car underneath. We dont get the Charger in the UK so i was just going on 300c stats.

    I was only really asking to get an idea if the performance would be comparable to the 300, its seems a huge jump to have a 3.5 litre engine and next up a 5.7. What worries me a little is the 0-60 time for the 3.5 in the 300c was quoted by chrysler UK as being 9.2seconds, if i recall the mustang 210hp V6 is about 6.5secs but there will be no manual gearbox on offer in the Challenger 3.5.

    http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/motoring/car-s...5-%29/CH000463/


    That being said Chrysler UK quoted a 10.8s 0-60 time for the neon, but motortrend recorded it as 8.2secs, so maybe they understate it for insurance purposes (although in the 300 the 3.0diesel is quoted as being quicker to 60 than the 3.5 petrol)

    http://www.wisebuyers.co.uk/motoring/car-s...04%29/CH000258/
    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedan/...000_dodge_neon/
     
  17. woodstock

    woodstock New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    0
    Bob, I respect your views, and I hope that you can respect mine. I don't want anyone to get any warnings. I really enjoy reading Allpar. Whenever I read your posts, I feel that they are very informative, complete, and that there is no need to comment. Since there is no need to comment, you don't know that I am agreeing with you.

    I think that we can agree on most things. For example, some people want Chrysler to make a new hemi with 426 ci. However, the bore centers are too close, and deck height is too short to pack 426 ci into a RELIABLE engine that will last over 100,000 miles that will require a warranty. There is also rod/stroke ratio. Chrysler "Raised B" engines were raised deck height engines to keep the rod/stroke ratio when they wanted to increase the displacement.

    I loved the E bodies from the start. The Chrysler engineers did a great job turning the Charger into a Challenger. In addition, if anyone has ever priced aftermarket Forged wheels, then the forged wheels on the SRT almost make it worth it to upgrade from the R/T. It's performance numbers are impressive. I understand the weight thing - as a business decision, weight reduction from the base LX was not in the scope of the project. I get it.

    27 years ago, I had a Challenger and a Cuda. 27 years ago my cousin had a Nice orange '70 Challenger R/T with a 383. One day my cousin picked me up to go for a drive. We were on the highway in the fast lane, going pretty fast. Someone got on the highway, crossed 4 lanes of traffic, and cut right in front of us. My cousin hit the brakes, swerved, spun, and crashed. I feel that my life was spared for some reason. The car looked like the new Vanishing Point Challenger that just crashed, only worse. 27 years later, my back and shoulder are still screwed up.

    In order to become an engineer, I had to solve many force-mass-acceleration-friction-spring-damping problems which were automotive related. Even though I didn't end up working in the automotive industry, I remember a few things. As I study for the Physics GRE, these problems come back to me. Now, I am a potential customer for a $40 k car. I would like to "buy American". I guess that I am supposed to forget all of those engineering problems. I have seen crashes, been in a crash, and seen many crashed cars in junkyards. I have had many chances to reflect on that, like every night while I am trying to find a comfortable position to sleep. The sum of all of that is that I have concluded that, A - people drive too fast. B - cars weigh too much. In order to stop, the kinetic energy of the vehicle must be dissapated in the heat from the brakes. C - antilock brakes might have kept us from crashing. I have a right to think that. I used to be obsessed with speed. Now that God has given me the chance to live to call myself old, to temper that, I am obsessed with stopping.

    Again, I respect your views. Sorry for the long post - I tried to save you the long story. I believe that ALL cars weigh too much. Not Just the Challenger. The Challenger had a chance to lose some weight, but for business reasons - cost, budget, schedule, etc., it wasn't within the scope of the project. I get it. I won't mention it, again, except in the context of cars in general. As a crash survivor and engineer, I factor vehicle weight into my car buying decisions. I'm sorry if you think that makes me a crackpot.

    Best regards,
    Woodstock
     
  18. woodstock

    woodstock New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    56
    Likes:
    0
    ...or shut up?

    OK, allpar gang. How about this?

    I've been toying about this idea for a project car.

    Original challenger + 6.1 hemi + LX suspension.

    Basically, similar to XV motorsports, except using stock LX parts. Essentially, change an original challenger into an LX. It would cost a lot less than XV.

    http://www.xvmotorsports.com/about/index.cfm
     

Share This Page

Loading...
 We are not affiliated with FCA. We make no claims regarding validity or accuracy of information or advice. Copyright © VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.