Adios Mopar…

Lumbergh21: “The original 200 cu. in.,I6 Mustang, made just over 100 hp and the 289, V8, that they used through early 68 made just over 200 hp.”

Actually, it was the 170 CID Mustang six that made 101hp. The 200 CID six made a whopping 120hp. The 289-2v was rated at 200hp with the 289-4v rated at 225hp.

Regardless, it’s worth mentioning that horsepower figures back then were rated by SAE gross, which skewed the horsepower ratings quite a bit higher than SAE net, the more realistic rating method which manufacturers began using around 1972.

KingElvis: Maybe we’re seeing the birth of a new genre: the V6 supercar.

There was a comparison in Car and Driver a while go that came to that very conclusion. They found that the performance of the current V6 Mustang was on par with the majority of musclecars sold in the sixties (stuff like 383 Mopars, 389 Goats, 390 Fords, and 325hp 396 Chevelles).

With even pedestrian, original 318 Challengers going for the same money, the new V6 Challenger is a viable alternative. I like the styling of the original E-body Chrysler as much as anyone else, but if the price of admission is the same as a new, erzatz, Charger-based Challenger, were I in the market, I’d take the latter.

I really don’t see this car cross shopped with an Accord coupe. Why? Because the typical buyer that is inclined to buy an Accord is doing so from a practical point of view. The Accord is refined, well made, reliable and as you put it, capable of spanking many other cars. Not a bad accomplishment for a rather pedestrian vehicle, to say the least. But the Accord, for all its virtues, does not stir the soul. Given the chance, it is capable of doing so, but to look at it you would never know. The Challenger, in contrast, is a car that you just want to kick some butt. It is a shame that Chrysler has such a crude V6, and missing two pots means it is not a “musclecar,” at least in the strictest definition. I’m not that hung up on the drive wheels – I had many hours of fun times driving a 95 Probe GT, a car with way more in common with the Accord coupe than the Challenger. The manual trans is more important – to me – than which wheels are driven.

I see the Challenger being bought by those who are inclined to buy American, or at least those with open enough minds to at least look beyond a specific brand. Accord buyers tend to be repeat Accord buyers. With all that said, I think there will be enough people who like this car for how it looks and for what it is. V6 Mustangs will certainly be contenders for these buyers, too. The vast majority of Accord buyers wouldn’t be caught dead test driving a Challenger. Too bad.

Don’t get me wrong – I like the Challenger…SE. It’s just that when you buy one for twice the price of the base model, you’ve really run into diminishing returns.

My philosphy is that you are always better off getting the base model of a bigger, more prestigious model, rather than the tarted-to-max smaller, cheaper vehicle.

It’s one thing saying what is more fun to drive – by that measure $500 go cart really beats all comers. But when you are talking about 40 large, I want some real live prestige and engineering, not a tarted up version of a car that secretaries and fresh college grads are buying.

One last thought:

I’m curious if you might see some special heavy duty rear gears for sale as Mopar speed parts. A 3.92:1 axle could really wake things up for the 3.5L V6 – add your typical cat back and intake mods and you could have a low 14 second car.

Maybe we’re seeing the birth of a new genre: the V6 supercar.

It’s funny that you say you could have a Mercedes for that money, because this car practically IS a Mercedes (It’s basically a 2-door Charger/300C which was based heavily on the last-gen E-Class)

It just looks… wrong.

Rushed? On the cheap? Sawed off a Charger above the wheels and stuck a Challenger body on top?

And what $45k Benz would give be even half the thrill of a SRT-8 Mopar? You are voicing your personal taste, not every “car guy” has the same taste. That you want a conservative looking well engineered car is fine with me, but others don’t have to share your taste.

I have driven the Challenger with 6.1 6spd, and I have driven my Sister-inlaws Ferrari 348. And I’m sure all the the status wh—s will say I’m nuts… but you hand me the keys to both rides , and me and the Dodge are gone.

To buy this car for $45G with the SRT 8 settup is a fool’s errand. My God, you can have a Mercedes for that money.

For $22G you can have a pass out of the mid-size penalty box. Just consider your other options for $22G – an I-4 Camry? an I-4 Accord? You’re kidding – right?

I saw an SE on Cicero avenue here in Chicago – from the back it had a really pleasing “Super Stock Dodge” stance – like it was a ‘64 Ramcharger steppin’ out over the line.

@ John R:

Sure you didn’t have the 2.7L Charger? I mean 250hp and 3800lbs – that’s pretty close the hp/weight of an SS396 Chevelle (if 325 ‘gross’ hp is roughly equivalent to 250 ‘net’ hp (1.3 factor)).

To me it is a nice coupe. We need some nice coupes. Drive it and be happy you’ve got something different from the standard issue jellybean sedan. Not syaing you’ve got to settle for anything, just saying that the conversation indicates you guys expect a Corvette killer the the price of this car. Won’t happen.

I’d suggest deporkifying it so the average guy could afford to drive it for the next 10 years.

Mileage of 18/25 and 3800lbs? I had a 88 LSC that weighed as much and returned almost the same mileage. Had a iron block V8, too. In 20 years I would have expected some kind of efficiency improvement beyond 1.5 litres less displacement.

Only in the small myopic world that the few remaining die-hard fans of so-called “muscle cars” are the RWD V6 Challanger and the FWD Accord v6 coupe NOT competitors to each other.
First of all the v6 Challanger is NOT a muscle car, it is a simply large coupe. It is not fast or exciting and does not even offer a manual transmission. The v6 Challanger is a secetary’s car in the same light as a 4cyl Altima coupe, 4cyl Accord coupe, v6 Mustang, and even the Civic EX (not Si) coupe. The fact that all of the above can be purchased with a stick should tell you somthing about the target market for these cars.

If the Challanger is not going to be crossshopped with the above cars it will be an utter and total failure for Chysler! There just aint enough nostalgia filled old men left in America that are longing for throwback from the Nixon era that share the same view of this car as yourself.

An SRT Challanger will get you alot of attention, but a v6 will have the same effect on folks that any Mustang or Camaro v6 of recent memory will have, not much. Folks view these things as “all show and no go”, same as they did back in the 60s and 70s. Not a very good image for a man that WANTS to be seen in his ride!

Funny you should mention the LSC (the Mark VII was rather nice) but for the your 18/25 today in the Accord you are getting 45 or 70 more HP and performance that would totally spank that RWD car. Yes, all from 1.5 liters less of displacement.

Put simply the Accord coupe is a far superior car than a v6 Chanllanger and it IS going to be more fun to drive. You, me and the rest of the folks that hang out here might have a major concern as too which wheels actually drive the car but for about 95% of the people the check out the Challanger and the competition FWD will NOT be a deal-breaker and for most will be an advantage.