From a S550 to S197

Sigma6

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Posts
73
Reaction score
13
IMHO, all three of the domestic 2+2 performance cars currently offered (Camaro, Challenger and Mustang (even the S197)) appear overweight and are too big compared to the original designs that inspired them.

I know you’re giving your opinion on appearance vs actually but respectfully they’re a lot closer on paper. Motor trend lays it on fairly well based on old muscle and 2011 model year designs which would be right in the wheel house of the s197, height of the camaro popularity and let’s face it challenge besides some tweak and bigger n bigger engine hasn’t changed ;)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/news/camaro-challenger-shelby-old-vs-new-cars/amp/

As a mustang fan, I do have to agree with you about wanting it smaller to which is why the fastbacks of the 60s appeals to a lot of people, smaller n nimbler. I don’t think with government regulations and safety mandates it’s feasible while keeping cost low to do so. Again my opinion.
 

Stranger

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Posts
656
Reaction score
1,387
I know you’re giving your opinion on appearance vs actually but respectfully they’re a lot closer on paper....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.motortrend.com/news/camaro-challenger-shelby-old-vs-new-cars/amp/
...
Specs copied from the Motortrend link …
1970 Mustang height: 51.6"
2010 Mustang height: 55.9" (a difference of 4+’’)

1970 Camaro height: 51.1"
2010 Camaro height: 54.2" (a difference of 3+”)

1970 Challenger height: 50.9"
2010 Challenger height: 57.1" (a difference of 6+”)​

While the newer cars are "in the ballpark" compared to their ancestors, they’re different enough to effect the proportions and aesthetics.
That’s why I said… “ appear overweight and are too big compared to the original designs”.
Unfortunately, most of the additional height found it’s home in the height of the doors, especially the Challenger.
IMHO, the Challenger looks ridiculous and this comment comes from a lifelong Mopar fan.
The Mustang does the best job hiding that extra height.
 

Stranger

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Posts
656
Reaction score
1,387
I've seen that site before too - but $200K is a tad rich for me.
Agreed, but the idea of a brand new 67/68 Mustang is awesome.
Fortunately, the price won't be a problem for a select few.
Hopefully I'll get to see one some day.
 

Juice

forum member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Posts
4,622
Reaction score
1,904
Specs copied from the Motortrend link …
1970 Mustang height: 51.6"
2010 Mustang height: 55.9" (a difference of 4+’’)

1970 Camaro height: 51.1"
2010 Camaro height: 54.2" (a difference of 3+”)

1970 Challenger height: 50.9"
2010 Challenger height: 57.1" (a difference of 6+”)​

While the newer cars are "in the ballpark" compared to their ancestors, they’re different enough to effect the proportions and aesthetics.
That’s why I said… “ appear overweight and are too big compared to the original designs”.
Unfortunately, most of the additional height found it’s home in the height of the doors, especially the Challenger.
IMHO, the Challenger looks ridiculous and this comment comes from a lifelong Mopar fan.
The Mustang does the best job hiding that extra height.
I always thought the new Challenger looked a little funny. (especially the rear bumper "too tall") Figured it was due to the taller, larger diameter wheels, Dodge made the body "fit". Or it would look like those clowns with 24s on a crown vic. Clearly a lot taller from the specs.
 

LarryJM

Resident Fuktard
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Posts
1,008
Reaction score
151
The old Challenger was on a Sport Fury body and the new Challenger is on the Ram Truck body.
 

Forty61

forum member
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Posts
1,166
Reaction score
1,060
Location
Dallas, TX
The old Challenger was on a Sport Fury body and the new Challenger is on the Ram Truck body.

I assume you’re making a joke here? The new Challengers are built on the LC/LA platform.

Out of anything on sale right now, despite the larger size, I’d be buying a Challenger if I was in the market for a muscle car. It may not be the fastest or most capable but I think of the big 3 it has retained the most character at this point.
 

LarryJM

Resident Fuktard
Joined
Jul 15, 2018
Posts
1,008
Reaction score
151
I had a 2012 Ram short bed single cab. It would have been perfect with a 392.
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top