Spike Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 (edited) pesronaly i feel safer in older cars (have a 87 5th ave and a 74 dart sport) as they are built outta thicker steel and ALL steel, where as new car are practicly all plastic! plus new cars dont have ANY style (except the challenger as it resembles the 70-74s a lot, my only problem is they put the gas cap on the wrong side of the new one) i also HATE teh "abs" brakes on new cars. my dart has manual brakes and i love em cuz i can actually feel the brakes Edited October 2, 2008 by Spike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I'd much rather feel the car stopping than "feel" the brakes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 its got disks up front, brand new at that, replaced em right after i bought the car in may and replace the rear drums (swaped axles and the drumes from it wouldnt fit) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I'd much rather feel the car stopping than "feel" the brakes! i had to drive a car with abs durin drivers ed and didnt like it one bit, and what i ment by feelin the brakes, is i can feel if there gonna lock up or not, which in case you can control em more and stop better IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jairus Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Liberals are pushing bicycles.... do bikes come with ABS? Do bikes have airbags, seat belts, bumpers? Actually, a guy can die on a bike much easier than he can in a 1965 Valiant on todays city streets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 i had to drive a car with abs durin drivers ed and didnt like it one bit, and what i ment by feelin the brakes, is i can feel if there gonna lock up or not, which in case you can control em more and stop better IMO That's the whole point of ABS: you can't lock the brakes! Which makes them much safer than ordinary brakes. No more "pumping" the brakes, the computer does it for you, faster and better than any human can. And Jairus... you do wear your helmet when you're riding your bike...right??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 My '69 AMX had drums on all fours............it was NOT a good feeling when you're racing someone at 120 and you've about run out of road, and the car won't stop surefooted!! Now mind you, mine had a 390 with a 4 spd so reaching 120 (in mine at least) was no great effort! I do like the ABS brakes though for sure...........my Saturn Ion coupe has ABS and it took me no time at all to get adjusted to NOT having to pump the brakes in a rainstorm for instance. Now my Saturn has thick front pillars, but the car is drum tight considering the fiberglass/plastic panels are hung off a steel birdcage frame. But compared to the previous gen. Saturns, the pillars seem a mile wide due to the new rollover standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Mark, a simple "no, liberals ride bicycles, republicans push them" reply would more than have sufficed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randx0 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 so now that the great brake debate is over and we can't discuss politics and a pillars looked better when they were more dangerous when will the new challengers be out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raisin27 Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I stopped at the Dodge dealer on the way home yesterday to check out the new Challenger. I was shocked at how big this car is. The wheelbase is longer than my Grand Marquis! The car weighs over two tons! This car is bigger and weighs more than the original 70's Challenger. It does look good, much like a 70 challenger without chrome bumpers to me. I hope they sell well Chrysler sure needs it, but I suspect like the Camaro its a few years late to have caught the upside of its market. Raisin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 I stopped at the Dodge dealer on the way home yesterday to check out the new Challenger. I was shocked at how big this car is. The wheelbase is longer than my Grand Marquis! The car weighs over two tons! This car is bigger and weighs more than the original 70's Challenger. It does look good, much like a 70 challenger without chrome bumpers to me. I hope they sell well Chrysler sure needs it, but I suspect like the Camaro its a few years late to have caught the upside of its market. Raisin The '09 Challenger is only 6" longer than the '70 model, but weight is up about 600 pounds! What did they do, fill the trunk with bricks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Zoom Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 The '09 Challenger is only 6" longer than the '70 model, but weight is up about 600 pounds! What did they do, fill the trunk with bricks? It's not just 6" longer, it's also taller and thicker through the main body, that's going to definitely add a lot of weight (it does "wonders" making small SUV's and CUV's weigh so much more than their car-based brethren). I think the original design from '70 is a lot better looking than the new car which is rather massive and blocky looking. Basing the Challenger on the full-size LH platform locks the styling into the high-cowl/overly thick body proportions. The original Challenger was not based on a full-size platform. Add all the extra weight of safety equipment, stronger structure, more basic equipment, and there's your trunk full of bricks. Your basic V6 Challenger is a real dog; only 255 hp and only an ancient 4 speed automatic. The new Camaro V6 is gonna smoke it; less weight and a base 300HP direct-injected V6 and your choice of manual or automatic 6 speed transmissions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Ya gotta thank all the safety regs that have to go into a car these days which add weight. Airbags, reinforced inside door beams, tougher roof standards (read: no hardtop ) etc, have really porked up the cars in the last 10 years or so. Not to mention all the "stuff" that folks want in their cars nowadays------air, the latest and greatest stereo and speaker systems, sound deadening, and all the other creature comforts that just weren't around in 1970. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrObsessive Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 It's not just 6" longer, it's also taller and thicker through the main body, that's going to definitely add a lot of weight (it does "wonders" making small SUV's and CUV's weigh so much more than their car-based brethren). I think the original design from '70 is a lot better looking than the new car which is rather massive and blocky looking. Basing the Challenger on the full-size LH platform locks the styling into the high-cowl/overly thick body proportions. The original Challenger was not based on a full-size platform. That was my main complaint the first time I ever saw the original concept-------it's how THICK the side profile looks! Chrysler tries to hide it by painting the lower section black, but that's like a heavy person wearing dark/flowing clothes to hide the bulges. Fact is the bulges are still there! I can say that as fat guy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry P. Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 The problem is Chrysler's current "gangsta" styling fad. It started with the 300, and has spread to the Charger and now the Challenger. I hate that fat side/slit window look, especially on the 300. I actually liked the previous gen. 300 much better. The new Challenger has that same look as the new 300, but maybe not quite as bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Hall Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 The problem is Chrysler's current "gangsta" styling fad. It started with the 300, and has spread to the Charger and now the Challenger. I hate that fat side/slit window look, especially on the 300. I actually liked the previous gen. 300 much better. The new Challenger has that same look as the new 300, but maybe not quite as bad. The wheelbase is longer than the original Challenger, and also, I think the hood is shorter... it does look quite thick through the sides and from the rear, quite tall... but I like the styling overall, it stands out amongst the look-alike generic FWD cars that are so common today.. saw one in traffic last week, a black SRT8 with the plate 'NOT2GRN'....really stood out amongst the usual FWD sedans, SUVs, etc of a typical morning commute... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.mopar Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Hello everyone just wanted to pass on some new I just got I talked to Ernie from Hawk/ linberg models and he said that the Challenger kit has been dropped because the one he had rights to doing was the concept one and not the production one just thought I would pass this on Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Peterson Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 No, the windshield pillars are that thick in the 1:1. That's one styling cue I wish would go away.....it seems the American cars are the only ones afflicted by that styling miscue. The foreign ones (namely Asian, Japanese) don't have those ugly thick A pillars. I'm waiting for the first lawsuit to come when someone has an accident and is seriously injured due to those pillars creating a hazardous blind spot in certain conditions. I have to wonder if the pillar thickness is a function of meeting crash test and rollover protection standards. Just thinkin' out loud... Even my goofy little Neon has A-pilars that can completely obscure an oncoming car from certain angles...and from not all that far away. Either way, having seen several of these things up close lately, all I can say is [can't use that kinda language here] that's a [can't use that kinda language here either] exciting car, and I can live with the thick A-pillars! Cindy Crawford has a mole, the Challenger has thick A-pillars. No big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gasman Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I really like the look of the new Challenger. I think it sounds great. and its been a big hit for Chrysler. but for the money, there is much better cars out there. the car tops out fully loaded at a little under $40K. its built on 15 year old technology. and there is no manual transmission for the V6 cars. at least the Hemi gets a 6sp. which from what I understand is very hard to find Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzboy66 Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Here's a cross section through a typical A pillar. As you can see, there's a lot going on in there... Ooooo, a Patent drawing, none the less! I was a patent draftsman here in Baltimore from '84 to '95, and spent 2 or 3 days a week at the old Patent Office in Crystal City, Alexandria, Va., where I'd search the old patents in the archives. What an education. Sorry about the off-topic. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modelsbyroni Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 The problem is Chrysler's current "gangsta" styling fad. It started with the 300, and has spread to the Charger and now the Challenger. I hate that fat side/slit window look, especially on the 300. I actually liked the previous gen. 300 much better. The new Challenger has that same look as the new 300, but maybe not quite as bad. THAT STYLING IS TERRIBLE, EVEN ON THE MAGNUM. THE OLDER 300'S LOOK ALOT BETTER. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantrix Posted October 12, 2008 Share Posted October 12, 2008 The problem is Chrysler's current "gangsta" styling fad. It started with the 300, and has spread to the Charger and now the Challenger. I hate that fat side/slit window look, especially on the 300. I actually liked the previous gen. 300 much better. The new Challenger has that same look as the new 300, but maybe not quite as bad. Oh I disagree with ya this time Harry. I really like the look of the newer Mopars. It has a chopped hot rod look that I really like. The larger wheel openings to accomodate a modern wheel (Dubbs) was a great way to incorporate a currrent trend (which Detroit has been doing since the 50's) and make the car look more "sure-footed". Smart design and marketting work in my opinion.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carguybradd Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 You want talk about thick A-pillars, you ought to see the ones on my wife's Chrysler minivan. On the rare occasions I drive it, I find myself bobbing my head back and forth trying to look around it while I negotiate corners. I'm 6-4, so at the least the mirrors don't block my vision... And since I own a 1:1 '70 Challenger, I can tell you that 1) the A-pillars on it are MUCH thinner than anything being built today, and 2) it IS a rattletrap, but I love it anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
george 53 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Brad, you still have a REAL Challenger? Too Cool. And YES, for as beautiful as they looked, ALL those years Chryslers were built like ######!I was lucky to own 2, a 69 Charger R/T 440 4spd, and a 69 Super Bee 440 automatic. The 68/70 B-bodys were some of the (if NOT THE)most beautiful cars Chrysler ever built, But, I've never been in one that din't sound like you were kickin a trash can every time you closed the door, trunk, or hood. And they had a nasty habit of tearin at the top of the drivers door Quarter panel seam, from too much torque twist.Thats how I can tell it the cars been raced, or restored.But, even with those few flaws, I'd still give one of my nu#* to have either one back again.They were brutally fast, and beautiful, and will ALWAYS remain as 2 of my favorite cars! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.