What do you think of this

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Fri Apr 19, 13 12:55 pm

Dave81 wrote: Is the Cuda the same Pete (never been in one), as its based on the same platform?

The 64-66 Barracuda was based on the A-body Valiant platform from the same years.

The 67-69 Barracuda was longer and wider than the previous years and no longer shared the Valiant's platform but was still classed as "A-Body".

The 1970-74 Barracuda and 'Cuda is based on the same E-body platform as the Challenger but two inches shorter in the floor between the rear and front seats. Enough to make the car more of a 2+2 than a 4/5 seater.

It was Plymouth that developed the E-body platform out of their budget so they were a bit peeved when the Chrysler bosses handed it over to Dodge too.
In order for the factory to fit any engine up to and including the Hemi they had to start with a B-Body bulkhead and suspension system. In effect it is a kind of short wheelbase version of a B-body.

Ivor · Post by **Ivor** » Fri Apr 19, 13 1:06 pm

Excellent description Dave

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Fri Apr 19, 13 1:11 pm

I wrote this for my old website that I sold a few years ago.

http://www.dodgechallenger.co.uk/challe ... tory_b.htm

It is HEAVILY based on the Motorbooks International Muscle Car Color History book "Barracuda & Challenger" by Paul Zazarine so I can't really take any credit for it.

The guy that bought my website was supposed to remove various bits and re-write the main pages/images. Of course he never did. He is just interested in trying to make money from people clicking on the ads. So most of the website is stuff I wrote back in the 90s and inaccurate.

Dave81 · Post by **Dave81** » Fri Apr 19, 13 1:26 pm

Dave wrote:
Dave81 wrote: Is the Cuda the same Pete (never been in one), as its based on the same platform?
The 64-66 Barracuda was based on the A-body Valiant platform from the same years.

The 67-69 Barracuda was longer and wider than the previous years and no longer shared the Valiant's platform but was still classed as "A-Body".

The 1970-74 Barracuda and 'Cuda is based on the same E-body platform as the Challenger but two inches shorter in the floor between the rear and front seats. Enough to make the car more of a 2+2 than a 4/5 seater.

It was Plymouth that developed the E-body platform out of their budget so they were a bit peeved when the Chrysler bosses handed it over to Dodge too.
In order for the factory to fit any engine up to and including the Hemi they had to start with a B-Body bulkhead and suspension system. In effect it is a kind of short wheelbase version of a B-body.

Cheers Dave,

I was really asking in regars to Pete's explanation of the drive in the E bod Chally, so was just curious if the E bod Cuda was the same?

The rest (Cuda develpoment) i knew but guessed thats for Stuarts benefit!

Dave-R · Post by **Dave-R** » Fri Apr 19, 13 1:34 pm

Yeah it was partly for Stu and any other newer people that might be reading this for similar reasons.

But the straight forward answer is the driving position is the same. You just have less legroom in the back.

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Fri Apr 19, 13 4:26 pm

Dave wrote: ............the straight forward answer is the driving position is the same. You just have less legroom in the back.

Yep, and the same limited rear and 3/4 visibility

Stu · Post by **Stu** » Sat Apr 20, 13 7:04 am

I'm a short arse at 5' 8" and I love the drive in a Challenger. I lose all interest in practicality when I drive anything interesting, though, so I wouldn't listen to Me. :-D

Pete · Post by **Pete** » Sat Apr 20, 13 8:27 am

I LOVE the "E" Bodies.
It is just that there are trade-offs in terms of design and practicality.
I found that the low flat seat means it puts a lot of pressure on the base of your back and spine and this is made worse by the gas pedal position. It does not make them so great for a a long drive.

I can remember Blue - who is quite a bit taller than me - coud barely fit in my rock-stock R/T and he was horrified at the driving position.

I am higligting these issues as it make be particularly relevant to the original poster.

A "B" Body is much more roomy, comfortable and better laid out in terms of design; becuase (as Dave points out) the "B" body evolved over a number of years.

The "E" body was thrown together to meet an emerging market - muscle pony car - which was very brief and as ever missed the boat......and the outcome shows....wonderful styling though..........

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sat Apr 20, 13 10:25 am

As Stuart originally said......

The problem is my legs- they don't work to well any more and I have to have hand controls on my cars to be able to drive safely!

So would this make an E body impracticle for him due to the driving position?

Stuartmmcfc · Post by **Stuartmmcfc** » Sat Apr 20, 13 1:29 pm

thanks for the info, its much appreciated

terryr · Post by **terryr** » Sun Apr 21, 13 8:36 am

i will be going to billing stuart ,should think it will be reasonably dry ,my mates bring his coronet if you want to try that for size ,all b bodys are roughly the same layout,see ya there

Stuartmmcfc · Post by **Stuartmmcfc** » Sun Apr 21, 13 3:30 pm

terryr wrote:i will be going to billing stuart ,should think it will be reasonably dry ,my mates bring his coronet if you want to try that for size ,all b bodys are roughly the same layout,see ya there

I had a very nice couple of hours there today.
Lots of interesting cars.
I had a close look at a 70 Callenger and I did realise it wasn't that suitable which was a real downer

Cannonball · Post by **Cannonball** » Sun Apr 21, 13 3:45 pm

Pete wrote:I LOVE the "E" Bodies.
It is just that there are trade-offs in terms of design and practicality.
I found that the low flat seat means it puts a lot of pressure on the base of your back and spine and this is made worse by the gas pedal position. It does not make them so great for a a long drive.

I can remember Blue - who is quite a bit taller than me - coud barely fit in my rock-stock R/T and he was horrified at the driving position.

I am higligting these issues as it make be particularly relevant to the original poster.

A "B" Body is much more roomy, comfortable and better laid out in terms of design; becuase (as Dave points out) the "B" body evolved over a number of years.

The "E" body was thrown together to meet an emerging market - muscle pony car - which was very brief and as ever missed the boat......and the outcome shows....wonderful styling though..........

i had a 71 challenger 383 rt 4 speed sold it to a guy from lincolnshire that i had never met he bought it on the spot i thought Bananarama! me how is he going to drive it we will have to take the front seat out and he will drive it off the back seat but no he folded himself up inside it and went of in a cloud of tire smoke he has since become a very good friend........... big chris he is 6ft 9,,

V8 Sam · Post by **V8 Sam** » Sun Apr 21, 13 3:56 pm

Talking about a-bods the duster etc.

I really like the driving position of my dart never get uncomfy in it.

Carl · Post by **Carl** » Sun Apr 21, 13 4:02 pm

Stuartmmcfc wrote: I had a very nice couple of hours there today.
Lots of interesting cars.
I had a close look at a 70 Callenger and I did realise it wasn't that suitable which was a real downer

At least you came away a lot wiser although a dream is shattered but better than spending a shed load of dosh and then realising that model is no good for you. At least you have narrowed it down and have the B body i.e RR. And of course the Plymouth Duster/Dodge Demon I mentioned in an earlier post.