Dodge Challenger Starts at $37,995 on sale Monday

AllKiller · Post by **AllKiller** » Mon Dec 10, 07 11:55 am

Yes the Orange caer is a private owners version on a Charger modded chassis

But the black Boxy looking one is a design along the Challengers lines i have seen on many Mopar Boards
The Challenger happened due to public demand and pressure, the Cuda would not take much body/ cosmetic work to rise from the Challenger platform.
And the demand would prove to be there.
A Chrysler 'Cuda, could happen if Chally sales go well i feel. maybe not for a year or two but possible.
And once the Challenger is out in force, there will be no end of Cuda mods from the Aftermarket suppliers i'd guess

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Mon Dec 10, 07 12:03 pm

why is though that chrysler are x amount of yrs to late AGAIN bloody ford get in the niche market again before anyone else

MrNorm · Post by **MrNorm** » Mon Dec 10, 07 12:36 pm

Cannonball wrote:why is though that chrysler are x amount of yrs to late AGAIN bloody ford get in the niche market again before anyone else

....and just like last time, the market will start to go away shortly after Chrysler finally get to the party....

AllKiller · Post by **AllKiller** » Mon Dec 10, 07 12:55 pm

Im not so sure Gav, what with the Camaro coming up too
this could be the start of a new Muscle car battle

The Camaro was dead a year or two ago, now look what theyve come up with

And a s Blue said, if they are going to do stripper models, then this could ignite the fuse

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:03 pm

Cannonball wrote:why is though that chrysler are x amount of yrs to late AGAIN bloody ford get in the niche market again before anyone else

They launched the Barracuda on April 2nd 1964 beating Ford by 15 days.

Unfortunately Chrysler's tight financial and bad marketing management insisted on only conservative changes to the main part of the car so that even with its fastback shape it still looked like the horrible Valiant it was based on.

The Mustang however was sexy even though it was based on the Falcon. Plus they had a fantastic (and expensive) advertising campaign.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:06 pm

Dave wrote:Plus they had a fantastic (and expensive) advertising campaign.

Thats because off only one reason Dave...

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:08 pm

It was Dodge itself that turned down their own version of the Barracuda even though Chrysler offered it. Dodge was happy with the way Charger sales were going and decided to stick with that.

But when they were offered the chance again with the E-body they decided to take it. Plymouth has spent a lot of time and money developing the E-body platform so all Dodge had to come up with was a new body basically the same shape as the Barracuda. Cheap and easy for them.
But that is why Dodge came in late.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:09 pm

RedRaven wrote:
Dave wrote:Plus they had a fantastic (and expensive) advertising campaign.
Thats because off only one reason Dave...

No. I said it was better looking and better advertised.

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:10 pm

Dave wrote:
Cannonball wrote:why is though that chrysler are x amount of yrs to late AGAIN bloody ford get in the niche market again before anyone else
They launched the Barracuda on April 2nd 1964 beating Ford by 15 days.

Unfortunately Chrysler's tight financial and bad marketing management insisted on only conservative changes to the main part of the car so that even with its fastback shape it still looked like the horrible Valiant it was based on.

The Mustang however was sexy even though it was based on the Falcon. Plus they had a fantastic (and expensive) advertising campaign.

trouble was dave dodge/plymouth only came up with a really good lookin car to attack the mustang in 1970 you can discount any off the 60,s barracuda,s they are plain as hell unless tubbed for racin, the mustang/camaro/firebirds were leaps ahead in the shape department,

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:10 pm

But the point is that Plymouth battled against the Mustang all through the 60s. They were not late for the show.

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:12 pm

Our posts crossed in the post there Dunc.

I think they had a good looking Barracuda by 1967.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:13 pm

Dave wrote:Plus they had a fantastic (and expensive) advertising campaign.

Well the reason why was because they could AF"FORD" it.

= me

= Dave....

AllKiller · Post by **AllKiller** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:24 pm

had me wondering

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 10, 07 1:27 pm

I bet Daves doing this right now

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 10, 07 3:07 pm

I think Plymouth had an OK looking Barracuda in 67. I wouldn't say it was good looking compared to the Mustang. The problem was always image. The Mustang was a great looking car with tons of image. Right from the beginning Ford got it right.

Mopar of course got it right too late. But by 1970 it was all over.

The 1970 E body Cuda and Challenger look gorgeous, but they are a flawed design. To enable the option of all Mopar engines including the Hemi they were designed around the B body engine bay. This need to accomodate a Hemi spoiled the balance of the car, so with a Hemi an E body handles like a Tesco trolley, it gets scary. An E body drives better with a small block, - but then why need such a huge engine bay. It's a fact a B body with a big motor handles a lot better than an E body.

The E body was right in the looks department, and everyone loves them, but that was all Mopar got right. B bodies are a much better car.

But anyway, we digress. - none of those woes will afflict the new Challenger. late or not, I am sure the new Challenger will be a greater success for Mopar than the original 1970's version ever was.