Anyone have skidpad numbers for the old E Bodies?

[340EBody]

Does anyone here have any old car mags that list skidpad numbers for the old Challengers & Barracudas? I have a book that collects a bunch of Charger roadtests from 1966-1974 and they have skidpad numbers for just one car; a 440 powered third gen. They generated .70g with the skinny tires and standard shocks.

I'm thinking an E body with sway bars, modern performance shocks, and good wide modern radials might rival a new Charger R/T (.82g). Any thoughts?

[Challenger_Nut]

In the Nov. issue of Car And Driver they did a comparison with a stock 1970 T/A Challenger against an XV Motorsports www.xvmotorsports.com 70 Challenger G-Machine with thier high dollar level II suspension set up. The stock (minus some BFG radials) pulled .68 and the XV car pulled .90. At one time XV was stating that they gaurenteed the entry level, level I suspension to pull at least 1G. I can't seem to find that anymore. I guess they figured that if thier $11,490.00 level II could not do it, maybe the $2,395.00 level I isn't capable. Or maybe it can and they did not want to advertise the fact that you can have 1G for $2395 with a stock style suspension or for $11490 you can have totally re-engineered coil over front with a three link rear that will pull .90G. Go figure.

[340EBody]

That Charger I mentioned in my first post was a 1973 SE model, although it did have a rear anti-sway bar.

I don't think much of Car & Driver these last few years; interesting that they only recored a .68 for a T/A Challenger. One has to wonder if the suspension was up to snuff or half worn out seeing that a new '73 Charger SE 440 did better than that; a car that wieghed in at 4180 lbs with 59% of that up front. I have a C&D mag, July 06. In it they test the new GT500 Mustang and also run a 1968 Vette and GT500 Mustang through their paces. They only recorded a .65g for the Vette and a .68g for the '68 Shelby GT500. The new GT500 pulled .95g.

I wonder what kind of condition the 40yr cars were really in.

[Challenger_Nut]

The car is claimed to be 23k orig. Who knows if the bushings we a little deteriorated though.

[RoostKing]

Come on guys, not to be a party pooper, but no, an old Challenger with some band-aid parts will no handle nearly as well as todays newer cars. The engineering and R&D that going into todays cars are insane compared to the 60-70's. Same thing with straightline performance. 340+6 could barely break 14's back in the day, if they were lucky. We got turboed 4 bangers doing 13's off the show room floor... Its nice to be nostaligic though and think, what if!

340+6 Challenger still looks and sounds better than any 4 banger though!!!!

[patrick]

Originally Posted by RoostKing

Come on guys, not to be a party pooper, but no, an old Challenger with some band-aid parts will no handle nearly as well as todays newer cars. The engineering and R&D that going into todays cars are insane compared to the 60-70's. Same thing with straightline performance. 340+6 could barely break 14's back in the day, if they were lucky. We got turboed 4 bangers doing 13's off the show room floor... Its nice to be nostaligic though and think, what if!

340+6 Challenger still looks and sounds better than any 4 banger though!!!!

I Agree!!!

[Ragamuffin]

The new 2008 Challenger SRT has a skidpad of .90 lateral G !!! Is this good ?

[TBONE24]

That's a decent number.Any higher and ride quality will suffer.

[340EBody]

The LX cars post .88-.90G, depending on who tests them. I think the .90 for the 08 Challenger is just an estimate at this time, but it should be in there somewhere. Too bad they couldn't make a real pony car out of it with skidpad numbers close to the GT500.

[forzav12]

Actually, the old AAR E bodies handled pretty well. I've got an original road test of one that pulled .78 completely stock on bias plies.
It really isn't that difficult to obtain a decent skidpad number with the small block e body. Konis, bigger sway bars, stiffer torsion bars an alignment and modern rubber will easily do it.
The C&D results are not indicative of a properly set up AAR(even in stock form).