Dodge Challenger Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello,

I was lookin' at the challengers lately on their site and noticed something that kinda bugged me cause it felt unnecessary. If you look at the bottom half of the new ones (below the "shoulder line" as I call it) you'll notice the wall drags on alot and doesn't curve inward like in the 1970 version that I am comparing it to here http://www.dodgechallengersite.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/16-1971-Dodge-Challenger-RT-Muscle-Car-By-Modern-Muscle-Side-Angle-1024x768.jpg

IMO this makes the new ones feel way bulkier and heavier just by looking at it : / I mean what do you guys think? Cause I always felt like you could just push that stuff in and make it sleeker. I dunno if its makin much sense lol.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,972 Posts
There were a couple of factors to do with that -- and you're correct the body on the E-body originals does curve in more from the character line to the rocker panels.

The '06 Challenger prototype had more of a curve, but the "hard points" for the suspension component attachement (rear IRS and fuel tank clearances) and aerodynamics played into the outcome for the production car.

The "fuselage styling" of the older Mopars contributed to lift at highway speeds on the '06 prototype, so it took some finessing to still have the lower body curve and get a reasonable amount of lift on the highway.

The front chin spoiler was added onto the production version to help combat lift - the '06 prototype didn't have one and it affected stability at speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I see, so basically these changes were made to combat the unstability it had at higher speeds cause of lift? I feel more comfortable with it now that I see why they made the change lol, before I just thought it was one of those moments where they wanna make a retro car more "modern" like they did with the pontiacs...that look nothing like the original XD

Thank you for the info I appreciate the insight :D

I've been looking into as to why they aren't using aluminum engines for their HEMIs o.o so far all I've found are drag racing numbers and higher horsepower lol. I can imagine all of this is because of money and time issues?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,972 Posts
Basically it comes down to costs - cast iron/chromium alloy blocks are cheaper for the raw materials and ease of casting the blocks.

Aluminum requires different casting techniques (porosity is an issue to watch for) and typically the cylinders in aluminum blocks are:

* cast in iron "dry" liners (less cost)
* pressed in iron "dry" liners (more assembly)
* "wet" iron liners cast in (more critical dimensions req'd to prevent water leaks)
* "wet" iron liners pressed in (more costs and assembly)
* Nikasil coated aluminum cylinders (more costly, multi-step process)
* Twin-arc spray metal depositing (more costly)

Wet - denotes coolant is in contact with cylinder liners
Dry - denotes coolant circulates through block casting, liner is within casting's walls - not in contact with coolant

I like the wieght savings that AL blocks would provide, but American amkes have been slow to make the switch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Yeah and then you hear news of all these special aluminum crate engines being made for racing purposes. I wonder why they can afford to do that but don't put it into their production cars for the long run? Pardon the ignorance I'm just thinking outta general common sense lol.

I mean challengers would be even better if they spent the time to put in aluminum engines and get 6 speed transmissions. My 2 cents...

Say you seem to know ALOT on the production, are you an engineer or something? Lol its an honor (I'm an A&P mechanic starting new)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,972 Posts
Yeah and then you hear news of all these special aluminum crate engines being made for racing purposes. I wonder why they can afford to do that but don't put it into their production cars for the long run?

Say you seem to know ALOT on the production, are you an engineer or something? Lol its an honor (I'm an A&P mechanic starting new)
Well, those crate engine prices are for bare aluminum blocks - not complete short block or long block assemblies that are "ready to go" installations into a vehicle. The $4.4k prices reflect that aspect...a long block assembly in cast iron and AL heads will run about that much as the bare AL block -

I bought a new GM crate longblock a few years ago (4 cam OHC 4v/cyl engine), so I'm familiar with the range of engine prices.

I read up a lot on technical stuff, so I'm a sponge absorbing all this info I've accumulated over many years...I'm an accountant by trade, so cost accounting/manufacturing is one of those "geek out" moments I can relate to in the car industry.

Years ago, I thought about working in the automotive design/manufacturing field...tie in the car enthusaist interest and my occupation...
In retrospect it looks like it was wise not to go into that U.S. industry...it basically has imploded on itself it the past few years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
616 Posts
Dan Neil (LA Times), in his review of the re-born Challenger, referenced this issue: "The old car, with its sculpted turn-under and sides, seems almost delicate compared to the big, bluff neo-Challenger."
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top