Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
13,601 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here is an informative video by Motor Trend's Head-to-Head, comparing the widebody Challenger Hellcat to the Camaro ZL1. They describe the Hellcat as the evolution of the musclecar and the ZR1 as a musclecar re-imagined into a precise sports car.

The video compares these two cars in drag racing, autocrossing, burnouts and highway driving.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,328 Posts
I can’t get the video to play...anyone else having issues, or is it just me...and the fact that I’m in the middle of nowhere and likely trying to use more data to watch the video than the meager cellular signal can provide
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,836 Posts
It confirms what past reviews of the two have stated - the "bench racers" have their typical comments of (Challenger)
  • its heavy
  • its large
  • older platform / design
yet it does things pretty well but the Camaro goes in a different direction and for day to day livability the ergonomics of the Camaro hold it back

During 2003 - 2007 the only new choice was the SN95 to S197 Mustang. When the S197 made its debut for MY 2004 the 4.6 V8 had 300hp as standard.
the Camaro was no longer in production and the Challenger didn't come along until 2008


Can you imagine if in the 70s all we had was just the Mustang II (1974 - 1978)?

Here's what overlapped the Mustang II during its production
-the E-body (Challenger / Barracuda) final year was '74 and not even a full model year of production
(318-2bbl or 360-4bbl were only engine options of 150hp or 245hp)
-the F-body (Camaro / Firebird) continued top HP was the TA 455 ci (200hp at its lowest point)
(Camaro 350ci ranged from 155-175hp in those years and no Z28 models in '75-'76)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
688 Posts
hal: your mention of the mustang II always brings to mind my worst car deal. traded in a '71 340 duster that i loved but had trouble running on the new gas when it came out as compression ratio was 10.5, on a '74 mustang II fastback that since was used to a real clutch I blew out 4 clutches. as a guy who has one foot in the ford family & club with my '10 SHO, even the ford people laugh at me. but like you said options where few back then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,126 Posts
hal: your mention of the mustang II always brings to mind my worst car deal. traded in a '71 340 duster that i loved but had trouble running on the new gas when it came out as compression ratio was 10.5, on a '74 mustang II fastback that since was used to a real clutch I blew out 4 clutches. as a guy who has one foot in the ford family & club with my '10 SHO, even the ford people laugh at me. but like you said options where few back then.
71 340 duster - One of the best and most reliable car I've ever had.
983128
983129
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,836 Posts
71 340 duster - One of the best and most reliable car I've ever had. View attachment 983128 View attachment 983129
its too bad the A-bodies from '70- '76 were as appreciated - so few around anymore and restoring them is way harder to find parts compared to B or E body models.

They were the closest competition to GM's X-body (Nova / Astre / Apollo / Omega) and I liked the styling better on the Plymouth / Dodge models vs. GM
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top