'70 Dodge Clallenger T/A vs R/T

[Roadrunner]

Was there ever a convertible T/A, and if not, are there any noticeable body differences between the T/A and R/T?

Thanks a bunch,

[maxwell48098]

Challenger T/As were only hardtops.

 

A.J.

[Keef]

Only notable differences between the two bodies that I know of would be the hoods, exhausts, and the rear spoilers. 

[Mike C.]

Only 340 Six pack engines on the T/A and AAR Cuda.

[espo]

Try Googling them both for pictures. This may give you a better idea of the differences. 

[1972coronet]

To add to the others' info :

1.) The 340 engines were specifically-cast with T/A cast into them (even though the 'Cuda was called AAR)

2.) Cylinder heads had provisions for offsetting the pushrods (casting number was the same, 'X' heads of all 1968-1970 340s)

3.) All had power disc brakes 

4.) "Fast Ratio" steering was 'merely' the same ratio gearbox, but the pitman arm was longer

5.) All had Sure Grip 

 Interior appointments - including gauges - were shared with the regular cars (e.g., standard gauges or Rallye Gauges as an option). All were shod with 15" wheels, with either base hubcaps or Rallye Wheels as an option (none had the Road Wheels (colloq. "Magnum 500") nor were 14" rims an option). Tyres were of different sizes front and rear.

There are other 'anomalies' with these batch-built cars. One which stands out to me is the placement of the antenna for the optional receiver : sometimes it's on the right quarter panel, other times it's on the right fender.

[Roadrunner]

2 hours ago, espo said:

Try Googling them both for pictures. This may give you a better idea of the differences. 

I did, and saw no T/A convertibles.

[Roadrunner]

Thanks for all the info, fellas, I really appreciate it. I'm contemplating a '70 Challenger convertible, possibly a kit bash between the AMT convertible R/T and the Monogram T/A, and was wondering if it would be possible to do a T/A convertible, but I guess not. I'll now have to go with an R/T convertible, though still a combination of the two kits, as I like the Monogram exterior parts way better.

[1972coronet]

Just because a T/A convertible didn't exist in 1:1 doesn't mean that you can't build one.

[Zoom Zoom]

Plot twist. I have a friend in SC that has a '70 Challenger "T/A" convertible. He's probably 80 years old now, the father of one of my good friends. Well...his old Challenger CV needed to be restored. He's been a Mopar guy forever (he has a Challenger 392 for a daily), he knows everything about them, he only has owned Chrysler products (aside from when he bought his son's BMW and his wife had a Miata for a few years). He fell into a real T/A engine, the guy who had it didn't know what it was but Jim did, and he traded a gun for the engine! So he spent stupid $$ restoring his car to look like a factory '70 Challenger T/A convertible. I didn't have a smartphone with me when I saw it (probably 10-12 years ago), the only thing I didn't like about the restoration was his choice of top material (too leather-looking). The Challenger was red/black when I last rode in it (in the mid-'80's) so it remains red/black now with the black T/A stripes. When I met him he had a 300B that he restored in the late 70's/early 80's. 

It's a model, build it like you want. Sometimes people w/real cars do that too!

[Roadrunner]

3 hours ago, 1972coronet said:

Just because a T/A convertible didn't exist in 1:1 doesn't mean that you can't build one.

True enough. I'll give that some thought. Thanks.

3 hours ago, Zoom Zoom said:

Plot twist. I have a friend in SC that has a '70 Challenger "T/A" convertible. He's probably 80 years old now, the father of one of my good friends. Well...his old Challenger CV needed to be restored. He's been a Mopar guy forever (he has a Challenger 392 for a daily), he knows everything about them, he only has owned Chrysler products (aside from when he bought his son's BMW and his wife had a Miata for a few years). He fell into a real T/A engine, the guy who had it didn't know what it was but Jim did, and he traded a gun for the engine! So he spent stupid $$ restoring his car to look like a factory '70 Challenger T/A convertible. I didn't have a smartphone with me when I saw it (probably 10-12 years ago), the only thing I didn't like about the restoration was his choice of top material (too leather-looking). The Challenger was red/black when I last rode in it (in the mid-'80's) so it remains red/black now with the black T/A stripes. When I met him he had a 300B that he restored in the late 70's/early 80's. 

It's a model, build it like you want. Sometimes people w/real cars do that too!

How cool. I'd like to see photos someday. As we speak of such things, I have a good friend with a nicely restored '70 R/T. The only oddity about his is that he used '71 rear fenders, as that was all he could find at the time (he was probably 20 or so then).