Content Wrapper

[thegypsyfox]

First off, they should not change the shpae and look of the car at all. Aerodynamics they say. . . I spit in the general direction of aerodynamics. Aerodynamics has been an overused excuse for the bean counters to ruin too many pretty cars. Here's the skinny. . . Aerodynamics have very little effect until you get up to speeds in excess of 120MPH. My 74 Challenger would fly down the highway at over 160MPH (it would shake like crazy. . . of course it did that at 45MPH. . . but it would get up there and still have throttle left). The aerodynamics on the concept are more than good enough for a production vehicle to be sold to the public at large. How many people have the brass ones to drive at that kind of speed anyways? If they change the look of this car and say it's beacsue of aerodynamic considerations. . . its pure BS. plain and simple. They should not add a B-pillar. The lack of a B-pillar is a tremendous advantage when you are figuring out how to put a softtop on a chassis. They should release a base model and SRT and a soft top the very first year of production. WHY? because why make people sit and wait for the options that they really want. . . make them all right away and reap the rewards of an ambitious launch. Also. . . the original 70 challenger was released with a soft top version and NINE different engines to choose from. . . that was a smart move. making a bunch of different options available will be the smart way to go again. AND for the love of god, keep the 6-speed as an option. . . I can't stand driving a slush-o-matic... I have a deep rooted love of the dodge challenger, if they screw it up and make it something that I won't want to drive. . . I'll march up there and kick them all in the nuts . . . one by one. . . and I'll make sure to keep my steel toed boots on.