The definition of a muscle car has been lost to the fogginess of memory and the gaps between generations, but since we're in the midst of a retro-muscle revival, it's probably a good thing to revisit. Though this term — not even coined until the fuel crises had killed off the category — is one of the most hotly debated in all of autodom, a muscle car can safely be said to be any intermediate (read: two-door sedan) or sport compact with a seriously oversized V-8 and special trim. (Some allowance is also made for full-size cars like big-engined Ford Galaxies.) The Pontiac GTO is the first and best example, but there are many more: A Chevelle SS is undoubtedly a muscle car, by virtue of both its engine and body size, whereas a Corvette, even an L88, is always a sports car. The base '64.5 Ford Mustang is a pony car (it spawned and named the category), but in Boss or Shelby guise, it's a muscle car. Launched at the end of '69 as a competitor to the Camaro and Mustang, the Dodge Challenger was also a pony car, but Hemi- or 440-equipped models are firmly in the muscle-car pantheon...
Can't wait for the LSx Camaro to get thrown into this mix.
On second thought, lets not go to The Car Lounge. Tis a silly place. "And this is the Lamborghini Murcialago SV... which is as mad and wonderful as the president of the country where it was made"
I love how they took iconic sports/pony cars and turned them into luxo barges built solely for sunday morning cruises. Thanks a lot, you baby boomer douchebags.
Quote, originally posted by Rukh »
Listen up, buddy, I've had both - I eat plain bagels with cream cheese all the time, and I know people who've brought me onion bagels to try. I've toasted them both. I've even had poppy seed bagels and bagels and lox with capers. I'll pit your onion bagel against my plain bagel with cream cheese any time anywhere, just meet me halfway.
I'll take either one! The Camaro, however, is where my hopes and dream are!
Modified by whitejeep1989 at 5:11 AM 4-30-2008
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
I guess all of the gloom and doom forecasts, from the "psychic pre-drivers" of The Car Lounge, have proved to be wrong. This Motive review of the Challenger never mentions the car's weight as a detriment in performance or handling. In fact, Motive has given the Challenger one of the most glowing endorsements that I have ever read.
Quote, originally posted by justanotherusername »
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
I love how they took iconic sports/pony cars and turned them into luxo barges built solely for sunday morning cruises. Thanks a lot, you baby boomer douchebags.
I didn't really get that impression - these cars, as overweight as they are, would mop the floor with their seventies counterparts in performance.
I'd still rather have a Mustang GT with a FR suspension pack.
Splinter - Team Post-Killing Ninja My decantering is delicate and courageous.
I didn't really get that impression - these cars, as overweight as they are, would mop the floor with their seventies counterparts in performance.
I'd still rather have a Mustang GT with a FR suspension pack.
Technology in general was inferior back then. Tires, engine management, suspension, you name it....but it was what the cars STOOD for that made them different from their modern counterparts.
When I think of the challenger ta, boss 302, or Camaro Z28....the closest car that I can find in modern terms would be a ....135 bmw....
Quote, originally posted by Rukh »
Listen up, buddy, I've had both - I eat plain bagels with cream cheese all the time, and I know people who've brought me onion bagels to try. I've toasted them both. I've even had poppy seed bagels and bagels and lox with capers. I'll pit your onion bagel against my plain bagel with cream cheese any time anywhere, just meet me halfway.
Wait wait, I'm confused. You said the GT500 is rough and raw when compared to the Challenger. Is the Challenger build off an S class chassis or something? I've had my GT500 for 11 months and there's nothing rough or raw about it whatsoever. It's the complete opposite. It's soft, refined and incredible easy to drive in stock form. Almost every weekend I drive the Shelby through Baltimore City and even on the most abusive of roads it's an incredibly soft ride for the class of vehicle it is. My only complaint was the factory tires are downright dangerous in all conditions.
One point you did hit home about taking a turn at high speed in a GT500. You better be confident or you'll lose it.. which well.. you'll lose it no matter what with the stock tires. So you just point the front of the car and let the rear guide you while pinging off redline
IMO this is the only article I've read by you guys that I didn't like. I think your describtion of the GT500 was incredibly false. But this is an opinion article and everyone has a right to their own
"I like the GT500 (my local dealer has at least 5 of them sitting on the lot if anyone is interested,) but I'll be waiting for the Camaro. "
The reason for the fact that he has five in stock is probably because the greedy dealer has added $10K or $20K to the sticker. I bet the same dealer still has a Ford GT in inventory for $50K over MSRP.
As I have just completed a 3,000-mile test drive in a new Challenger SRT8, details of which can be found at http://www.automotivetraveler.com, I can echo Eddie's comments almost 100%, and agree with his choice of the Challenger SRT8 over the Shelby GT500, having driven both, albeit not side-by-side. (I chose to drive the new Challenger SRT8 side-by-side with a 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi instead.) The Challenger SRT8 is simply the better all around choice, it's generic LX interior notwithstanding (I don't think that the Shelby's hard plastic interior is any better) and would be easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.
The more I thought this through, and having read several other observations and driving impressions, I believe my thumbs-up nod is due to the rear suspension setup on the Challenger, the multi-link independent suspension gives the Challenger a leg up on getting the power to the ground versus the oft criticized live axle in the Mustang-based Shelby GT500.
Yes, the Challenger is big and bulky but it drives small, and is supremely comfortable, especially at high speed. And the front splitter design works well in managing airflow, while being flexible to resist curbs without damage.
Challenger vs Mustang is sure to inflame partisan debate, and that's a good thing, just as it was almost 40 years ago. And with the Camaro coming, it will only get more partisan and to me, this will improve all three. (Maybe a revived Trans-Am series will follow?) As I also write for Musclecar Enthusiast, and my story will appear in the next issue. I'm eager to see the letters that I'm sure my feature will generate.
Great debate...one I'm sure will continue in the days, weeks, and months to come.
There is a lot to like about the Challenger, but I just can't seem to get over the exterior design. I wonder why someone thought it was a good idea not to start off with a manual on these cars, then offer the automatic. Kinda seems backwards.
As far as the Mustang, well it's starting to show it's age (ever so slightly). The only real complaint I've had with the current generation is the overall softness, and some of the interior bits. Then again the 2010 should see the light of day relatively soon..
I love how they took iconic sports/pony cars and turned them into luxo barges built solely for sunday morning cruises. Thanks a lot, you baby boomer douchebags.
um.. the original challengers/mustangs weren't really THAT much more then mediocre. It's just their "legend" has grown through the years and your impression of them has been diluted down to the really awesome versions.
I appreciate your posting. Unlike most of us (including myself), you have driven the cars that people are currently debating. Your real world experience weighs much more than the pro/con/troll biases which have been displayed here. Again, unlike most of us here, your professional credentials make your opinions or educated guesses worth a bit more than the average, 15 y.o.blogger. I also appreciate that you have listed your real name, job title, and associated publications.
Quote, originally posted by autotronic »
"I like the GT500 (my local dealer has at least 5 of them sitting on the lot if anyone is interested,) but I'll be waiting for the Camaro. "
The reason for the fact that he has five in stock is probably because the greedy dealer has added $10K or $20K to the sticker. I bet the same dealer still has a Ford GT in inventory for $50K over MSRP.
As I have just completed a 3,000-mile test drive in a new Challenger SRT8, details of which can be found at http://www.automotivetraveler.com, I can echo Eddie's comments almost 100%, and agree with his choice of the Challenger SRT8 over the Shelby GT500, having driven both, albeit not side-by-side. (I chose to drive the new Challenger SRT8 side-by-side with a 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi instead.) The Challenger SRT8 is simply the better all around choice, it's generic LX interior notwithstanding (I don't think that the Shelby's hard plastic interior is any better) and would be easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.
The more I thought this through, and having read several other observations and driving impressions, I believe my thumbs-up nod is due to the rear suspension setup on the Challenger, the multi-link independent suspension gives the Challenger a leg up on getting the power to the ground versus the oft criticized live axle in the Mustang-based Shelby GT500.
Yes, the Challenger is big and bulky but it drives small, and is supremely comfortable, especially at high speed. And the front splitter design works well in managing airflow, while being flexible to resist curbs without damage.
Challenger vs Mustang is sure to inflame partisan debate, and that's a good thing, just as it was almost 40 years ago. And with the Camaro coming, it will only get more partisan and to me, this will improve all three. (Maybe a revived Trans-Am series will follow?) As I also write for Musclecar Enthusiast, and my story will appear in the next issue. I'm eager to see the letters that I'm sure my feature will generate.
Great debate...one I'm sure will continue in the days, weeks, and months to come.
There are plenty of existing technologies that produce emissions free electricity. There isn't one single technology in the world that produces emissions free gasoline.
I can't wait for 2010, the Camero will be out, the new Mustang will be out, the Challenger will be a couple years old, the prices will either be ridiculous or a bit more resonable...lol...hopefully. Competition always brings the best out. But right now, I think both these cars need to go on a diet...seriosuly a 4,000lb sports car, the Euro's and Japanese's are laughing at us!
But right now, I think both these cars need to go on a diet...seriosuly a 4,000lb sports car, the Euro's and Japanese's are laughing at us!
Keep in mind though, that the BMW 650i and the Nissan GT-R, which are relatively close in size, are both within 300lbs of these cars, and both make use of large amounts of aluminum to keep weight down, which ain't cheap.
The automatic was chosen to get the car into production with a minimum of delay, it's that simple. It took Dodge exactly 30 months from when the concept was first shown to cars appearing in dealerships. Plus, at best, a 6-speed manual will comprise less than 10% of overall sales, should make the wisdom of Dodge's decision to go with an automatic-only SRT8 at the start of production (given that's the drivetrain combination offered in other LX-based LXs), the obvious decision. I suspect that the 6-speed will also be offered in the 2009 300C SRT8 and Charger SRT8, but also suspect that it will go into less than 10% of overall production.
I hope that you venture over to http://automotivetraveler.com to take a look at our Challenger coverage and take advantage of the images that we have available for download in our image gallery.
I have a 2008 GT-500. The stated 500 HP can easily be bumped to 600 even 700 HP for relatively bargin prices based on the amount of increased power. Lot's "Bang for the Buck". I do agree that the interior is rather budget built, lot's of plastic. There are tons of after market parts for mods.... suspension, engine, interior and exteroir. It'll be interesting to see where MOPAR and the the aftermarket crowd take the Challenger. It'll be more interesting when I meet one at a stop light!
I know that Henessey Performance would have their version out in no time. But lets be serious, the only way Ford gets their HP is by slapping superchargers on everything. Put one on a Charger and you got yourself sumthin. Dont wanna get started on STS...... If I was going to get a Mustang it will def have to be F-Bodys (90-93)
But lets be serious, the only way Ford gets their HP is by slapping superchargers on everything. Put one on a Charger and you got yourself sumthin. Dont wanna get started on STS...... If I was going to get a Mustang it will def have to be F-Bodys (90-93)
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Let's completely ignore that an F-Body is a *Camaro* or a *Firebird*....
Ford has put supercharges on their motors because they don't have much of a big-block anymore. They could develop a 350 or a 370 cubic inch mill to throw under the hood of the Mustang, but why bother when the 4.6 and the 5.4 work so well?
I guess Ford could dust off the old 427 Cobra Jet and spend all kinds of money making it modern and efficient, but they wouldn't be making anyone happy except you.
For advertising information Click Here
