Wanted: 79-83 challenger...

[NOTSURE]

I had a daytona Turbo z and man your right there was considerable turbo lag..
I loved that car it was one of my first new cars ever bought.

I always wanted a conquest never got around to it.It was a funky time for Dodge when they mated up with Mitsubishi.If I remember right they did haul butt for imports when most imports back then were sewing machines on wheels.Man the 80's where tough..
Many light to light sprints in that turbo Z,won most..

Originally Posted by Go Goody

They were predecessors to the Conquest and actually drove pretty good.....I had a Conquest turbo and really liked it. Very long on turbo lag though.

[RoostKing]

I used to drool over the 90's Turbo Z's..

[FourMopars]

Originally Posted by tsiconquest88

anyone have one let me know and with pics and all. Thanks

I remember test driving one of those in 1980, I ended up buying a 1980 Z28 350 4 Speed. I think I made the right choice.

That little MITSUBISHI aka Challenger was not a bad little car, but nothing like a good ole American V8.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

[tsiconquest88]

No steve_friend i am definately talking about the years stated, you wouldnt probably know anything about them if you arent in the whole 80's turbo car thing, but they were basically a mitsu sapparo but dodge bought some and it was the car that became the 80's dodge charger for a few years not ur idea of a real dodge charger im sure lol but cool cars nonetheless, and hey its what the charger body style changed to so, if anything a true collector of a car will get any and all they can regardless of worrying about hype of ohhhh thats not a true charger and all that nonsense.

[Go Goody]

Check this out....35 MPG in 1979.....too bad DCX couldn't stick to the plan.....fleet mileage sucks for them.

Here is a link to the advertisement

Google Image Result for http://www.productioncars.com/send_file.php/ad_dodge_challenger_red_outside_1979.jpg

[Steve Friend]

You are right. I did not follow many of the '80's cars. Most were where the automakers lost sight of performance and style in my opinion. I will take a closer look at this one though on the web to see what the attraction is.


[quote=tsiconquest88;31942]No steve_friend i am definately talking about the years stated, you wouldnt probably know anything about them if you arent in the whole 80's turbo car thing,

[tsiconquest88]

Respectable opinion man. Although on the side of things where you said the 80's lost its performance, that is actually false. Lighter cars were actually made since the whole v8 engine thing was too high in emmissions and fed put more regulations. So in fact lighter cars with small engines that put out good power could take many of the old cars in both straight line and of course circle, etc. In example a stock omni GLHS (turbo) for instance was a pretty quick little car with only 165 hp in its slowest form could make 1/4 mile passes quicker than many of the old cars (when also stock) as they weighed so much. 80's was a pretty good change in performance automobiles, i agree not looks wise for some cars but speed lighter cars with a small displacement engine with turbo or even not could do some serious damage to many of the old cars.

[flashingj]

Being the owner of a 79 Dodge Magnum, I thought I was the odd guy out. I do not remember that car, wow I learned somthing new today. I remember the plymouth arrow only because I helped a guy install a new stereo in it, and it was a nightmare.

[tsiconquest88]

lol and funny u mention the plymouth arrow cus it used the same 2.6 engine as the challenger. The starion/conquest also used the same engine (2.6 liter) but had the turbo and also different internals, nitrided crank and forged steel rods with better cast pistons, higher flow oil pump and the 2.6 block was casted with threaded holes for oil squirters which the blocks for the N/A blocks didnt have.

[CUDA 1]

I have one of these sitting out in the trees ( yea we do have some trees here in NE) anyway where are you from? and would you be interested in it?