Giant sports car ?

[don duick]

 We all {or most of us} agree that the 2nd generation charger is the best looking car ever, 
Does anybody wish that it could have been a bit smaller, like A or E body size?
Or does it have to be this size to look as good as it does?

[RECHRGD]

The size of the car is part of what gives it that "bad ass" look.  If it were smaller, it might just become 'pretty'....

[1974dodgecharger]

No, the size, looks, and everything of the 2nd gen g8ves it such a menacing look to it.  Compare any car during that car and folks will say usually 2nd gen chargers meanest looking.

[JB400]

We all {or most of us} agree that the 2nd generation charger is the best looking car ever,  
Does anybody wish that it could have been a bit smaller, like A or E body size?
Or does it have to be this size to look as good as it does?

Probably only when you're washing it, buffing it, or sanding on it

[Aero426]

We all {or most of us} agree that the 2nd generation charger is the best looking car ever,  
Does anybody wish that it could have been a bit smaller, like A or E body size?
Or does it have to be this size to look as good as it does?

Someone has already tried an E-body downsized Charger it with dubious results.

[Aero426]

I want to barf every time I see this.

[Baldwinvette77]

If thats the definition of perfection, i'll take half-assed ANYDAY 

[Ghoste]

If I wanted a sports car I would get a Viper, if I wanted a little car I'd get a Duster and if I wanted a ponycar I'd get a Challenger.
The Charger is a road car.  The size is exactly what it should be.

[lloyd3]

I'm a fairly big guy and I needed a big car to be both comfortable and moderately safe. B-body Mopars always worked for me for those reasons. Most true "sports cars" are just too small for me to really enjoy.  When these cars were made, America was big and brash and we basically ran the world. These cars reflect that period of history. For all intents and purposes, they were and are Detroit's version of a giant sports cars.

[JB400]

Chrysler got their proportions  right when they designed the Charger, why change it?   I see no need

[Aero426]

Chrysler got their proportions  right when they designed the Charger, why change it?   I see no need

  Talk about scoring a home run.   

[polywideblock]

                if you want the  size of an a or e body might as well buy one of them

    although I'd have to disagree with the statement about "best looking"       
     beauty is in the eye of the beholder  ALL chargers are beautiful  why split ranks /hairs about which gen looks best AGAIN   

[Dreamcar]

What makes the Charger so sought after, IMO, is the entire package that makes up a Charger. That includes its overall size and proportions. I love all cars including sports cars, and I wasn't expecting my Charger to ever fill that role. There are much better cars that serve as a sports car. To me, the Charger is a big, bad, boulevard cruiser that after 40+ years can still surprise some people off the line. 

[myk]

The giant size is what makes the 2nd 'Gen Charger the "king" of performance cars.  It's not the fastest, the best handling or anything like that, but its unique styling that not too many cars come close to as well as its ability to fry rubber at will, makes it the flagship of the musclecar era.  Styling and body wise, not a damn thing needs to be changed on a 2nd 'Gen Charger; like the original Chrysler sales literature once said, "Charger....you wouldn't change a line on it, even if you could..."

[WHITE AND RED 69]

I want to barf every time I see this.

Funny thing is the car couldn't sell. Hell, I don't even think anyone put a bid on it.    I think they realized they made a huge mistake. So they tore it all apart, repainted it all black, added all the original chrome, and changed back to the original grill. Looks waaaay better and I dig it but like others have said if you want a smaller car get an e-body.

Finally did sell though...for a huge loss I bet.

[Mike DC]

  
I'm fond of saying it:


Major changes to the shape of a 2nd-gen Charger = FAIL.
About once every 10 years the car customizing world has to re-learn this the hard way.



The car is arguably a bit too long, I would agree with that.  But that length is part and parcel to the styling and I don't think you can separate the two very well.  If you just literally shrunk down a 2nd-gen by 10 or 20 percent then the hood & roof would be rendered too low for the engine & driver.  The only way to shorten it horizontally is to make it more stubby and that hurts the looks.

You'd end up with something more like a 1st-gen Camaro if you tried to shorten a 2nd-gen in a proportionate way that doesn't make the hood & roof too low.  (Oddy enough, the styling of 1st-gen Camaros is pretty popular too.)

[don duick]

thanks for all input I do agree with you all.  I agree the charger that has been shortened does not look good. I do realise that if you shrunk the charger and kept the proportion  you could not fit into it. It would end up  being a 2 seater with banana seats. I suppose it is very unique that it is the sportiest looking tank/cruiser. Mine needs a some suspension work to be more enjoyable. My apologies to polywideblock I should have phrased the question a bit better and referred to all chargers up to the 3rd generation. Sorry 4th generation fans but chargers look S#$% after 74

[polywideblock]

  even some 4th gen can look alright done the right way   
     I just love mopars in general  the only one iv seen that I don't like is a 61  dodge don't know what they were thinking with those reverse fins and but ugly grill 
  but back on subject part of what draws me to these cars is the size. their intimidating without having to try, when their  just sitting there  they look mean   and demand respect     

[don duick]

exactly When I was young I loved big cars even cadillacs. One of the reasons why I liked the charger was in fact its size. I have lost interest in full size American cars now and the only two left I like is the charger and the chevy impalas from 65 to 68. All people I know have no interest in cars and when they see my charger the usual comments  are

"its big"
look how long it is
I feel like saying thanks prick I never noticed

[Ghoste]

Just tell them it has to be that big, a smaller car could never hold that much awesome.

[don duick]

ha ha ha ha
thanks ghoste I found out how to post pics there are 2 blue ones in the before and after section and this one I have 2  chargers. Both were cheap basket cases and 3 years of  work to get them to this stage. this one has sat in the shed for 11 years.

[Daytona R/T SE]

I always wished my Chargers were a little bit bigger.  


Longer.

Wider.


But...


I'm a big, fat goon.  

[myk]

2nd Gen Chargers AREN'T that much bigger than modern cars in the same class.  My '99 F-bird, '98 Mustang GT and one of my neighbor's Lexus GS400 are all about the same size as a 2nd 'Gen.  It's the muscular curves and the subtle aggression in the styling that imply "bigness" when there really isn't that much of it on a 2nd 'Gen.  By chance, wasn't the 2nd 'Gen considered a "midsize" car back in its time? 

[maxwellwedge]

My Darts were classified as a "sub-compact" back in the day....they are bigger than my SUV! You want giant? look at the old Lincolns and Caddy's etc. They were Land Yachts! Still, had no problem parking theses buses back then.....maybe the parking spots were bigger? 

[Ghoste]

Yes, the wheelbase was quite a bit longer then the GM intermediates like the Chevelle but still a mid size car.

[myk]

Yes, the wheelbase was quite a bit longer then the GM intermediates like the Chevelle but still a mid size car.

To me, these cars are NOT that big.  I think the world's just gotten too used to driving around in econo-boxes...

[Ghoste]

I totally agree with you.

[challenger70]

While a bit shorter, e-bodies are a bit wider.  Neither is really "smaller", just bigger in different areas.

[1974dodgecharger]

Yes, the wheelbase was quite a bit longer then the GM intermediates like the Chevelle but still a mid size car.

To me, these cars are NOT that big.  I think the world's just gotten too used to driving around in econo-boxes...

Yup, they look big but in reality not so big as folks think they are.

[don duick]

they are not that big on the inside either.

[Ghoste]

A lot more room inside than a Duster or Mustang or any of that ilk.

[Mike DC]

 
 
Line up a row of guys between 6' and 7' tall, and a 6'0" guy in the row looks short.  That doesn't mean 6'0" is really a short height in the big picture.  

Chargers aren't huge compared to a lot of the popular musclecars, and they are downright small compared to many modern cars & trucks.  But they still aren't small IMHO.  



A real sports car doesn't have much excuse to weigh over 3000 lbs.  Especially not when its age allows it to avoid modern regulations and luxury options.  

Chargers are sporty passenger sedans, not sports cars.  

[Lord Warlock]

While i wouldn't mind seeing a downsized version of the 2nd gen, I'm not sure how it would be possible without ruining the looks overall.  The 2nd gen by far has been the sexiest car i've owned. The stealth I also have is also pretty sharp to look at but its as heavy as the charger is even if it is a couple feet shorter.

[hemihead]

An A - Body Dart is what people think is a big car today . Chargers back then were considered Mid - Size .
As far as looks go , I had a 70 Charger as my first car but I prefer my 73 . Cleaner and more aerodynamic .

[Tilar]

I want to barf every time I see this.

Aint that cute!! 

All kidding aside, although I'm not a fan of that car I have seen a lot worse.

[don duick]

yeah I remember many years ago I didnt think of it being that big as I also used to like chevy impalas,  Plymouth furys and galaxies. Recently, I had it parked and surrounded by Japanese cars, at that particular moment it just looked so long.

[myk]

Not that big; length, width, height, not much has changed over the years IMO...

[Cooter]

And people wanna get bent over the DOH 'destroying' 2nd gen Chargers.......
This abortion should never have been created while eating shrooms.

[Dino]

The size is just right.  A bit cramped in the backseat but that's a small price to pay, find shorter friends.   

The rear quarters alone are over 7 feet long and it's these things that makes it look so damn sexy.  Think of it as a 6' + supermodel.  Those legs just go on and on.   

If the Camaro was longer and had more smooth lines, it would be a way more attractive car.  Just like the fastback Mustang looks so much better because of the long rear deck which the plain stang never had.  Those long lines make a car.  Think of all those futuristic 40-50's cars.  Long lines make it hot.

You can change the wheels and some details here and there, but it's very easy to go too far on a 2nd gen and mess it up. 

[Ghoste]

And people wanna get bent over the DOH 'destroying' 2nd gen Chargers.......
This abortion should never have been created while eating shrooms.

True.  Of course the GL can still claim legions of fans, this abortion was only loved by its creator and even he doesn`t want to keep it. 

[1974dodgecharger]

Not that big; length, width, height, not much has changed over the years IMO...

Sure looks fckin cooler thats for damn sure....

[Mike DC]

 
The shortened '68 wasn't really a terrible idea.  I think they had some good ideas about where to shorten the car but they took too much out in those places when they did it.  I would be curious to see how it might look with more like 1/2 or 1/3rd as much removed in all those same places. 

[Ghoste]

I know how it would look. 

Some things are just right the first time and all of these schemes to booger up the 2nd gen Charger really amount to mustaches on the Mona Lisa as far as I'm concerned.

[ws23rt]

Yes, the wheelbase was quite a bit longer then the GM intermediates like the Chevelle but still a mid size car.

To me, these cars are NOT that big.  I think the world's just gotten too used to driving around in econo-boxes...

I agree they are not big but seem so because the average size car these days is smaller and we have grown accustom to them.

When these cars were new they were called mid sized.

[TPR]

I think you can't improve on perfect.
The 2nd Gen is the longest and widest car I've ever driven and I like it that way.
When I had my house built back in '05, my main priority was to make sure my garage was at least 5.2832 metres [208 inches].
It took me another seven years to put a Charger in that space, but I'm glad I thought ahead.
TPR

[UH60L]

It's funny, I was talking to a friend about this the other day.  Back when I was a kid and decided I had to have a '68 or '69 charger, I really never realized how big of a car they were.

It wasn't until I climbed in and drove mine home from Utah to Oregon that it hit me.  The quarters were huge and made it hard to see looking in the side mirror, and with the interior mostly stripped out it felt like I was sitting in a huge tin can.

I think, as others have stated, the size is perfect for the styling.  You couldn't change one without screwing up the other.

As a side note, I've gotten into a few arguments with people about a certain new sedan and the number of doors it should have, and a common response is "it just wouldn't look good with two doors because it the doors would be too long, and big cars look strange with two doors".  So I point out that a '69 charger is 7.8 inches longer than the current sedan...and it looks great with just two doors.....

On the flip side, I personally think small/little cars look funny with 4 doors.....because....they're small, which my mind associates with sporty...

So, size and design, there is definitely a huge correlation, and I think they got it perfect with the '68 to '70.  I think they got it pretty good with the '66 to '67 and '71 to '74 too, but the second gen...there's just something sexy/beautiful/intimidating/WOW about them!

There are a few things in life that I get excited about the way I did when I was a little kid, and the second gen charger is one of them.  I've been known to pull a U-turn and chase/follow/and "give huge grinning thumbs up at" a second gen charger.  I've almost crashed my car because of spotting one.  It's funny, my wife and kids will spot them now too, and come home and tell me all bout it, color, R/T badges, which way it was headed....  :-)

[myk]

Not that big; length, width, height, not much has changed over the years IMO...

Sure looks fckin cooler thats for damn sure....

I should take a new group photo, now that the Charger's finally had it's body and paint done...

[don duick]

nice collection Myk, of course charger looks the best, even in that condition

[Mike DC]

 
I think part of the reason for this whole topic is because Mopar never quite nailed the ponycar market.  Not like the Camaro, the Firebird, the Mustang, or the Cougar.  


An ideal ponycar needed to be mostly based on the small car platform for a few different reasons. The Mopar A-bodies were nice cars in 2dr form but they never got the kind of dedicated cool car that the other brands had.  The styling just wasn't quite there.  The Darts are a little bit too conservative/utilitarian.  The pre-1970 Barracudas had too much of the early/mid-1960s Mopar look (which has aged badly IMHO).  


Mopar's stylists did a great job with the E-bodies, based very heavily on the B-body platform.  But the cars still aren't really shaped quite right because of the underlying proportions.  The proportions were better on the B-bodies and the stylists hit the ball out of the park on the '68-70s.  
 

[Ghoste]

I think they nailed it, they just came in too late.  Mopar had two bad styling experiences that nearly killed them, the Airflow series and the downsized 62's.  It made the company frightened to take the lead in my opinion and they got a bad habit of waiting to see what GM would do.
68-70 Charger being an exception.
Its all just a theory though.

[Mike DC]

I think they nailed it, they just came in too late.

I look at the original E-bodies and I see the same problems with the current Challys and Camaros - if you give the car enough of every specific thing the buyers want then it ends up being too much car for what it was intended to be.  It photographs well and produces good track numbers.  But it feels too big, weighs too much, and probably can't be made cheap enough. 

Mopar had two bad styling experiences that nearly killed them, the Airflow series and the downsized 62's.  It made the company frightened to take the lead in my opinion and they got a bad habit of waiting to see what GM would do.
68-70 Charger being an exception.
Its all just a theory though.

I agree. 

But I also think Detroit's entire product line in 1961-62 should have been scrapped out of ugliness.  GM, Ford, Mopar, and everyone else I can think of. 

And I think Mopar didn't produce many good looking cars between '60 and '67.  If Mopar was copying GM cars then they should have been copying different ones.  They had a great drivetrain by '63 but it took another 5 years for them to skin it in something attractive. 

 

[Ghoste]

The Mustang and Camaro had largely gone that way by 1970 too though.

[hemihead]

I think they nailed it, they just came in too late.

I look at the original E-bodies and I see the same problems with the current Challys and Camaros - if you give the car enough of every specific thing the buyers want then it ends up being too much car for what it was intended to be.  It photographs well and produces good track numbers.  But it feels too big, weighs too much, and probably can't be made cheap enough. 

Mopar had two bad styling experiences that nearly killed them, the Airflow series and the downsized 62's.  It made the company frightened to take the lead in my opinion and they got a bad habit of waiting to see what GM would do.
68-70 Charger being an exception.
Its all just a theory though.

I agree. 

But I also think Detroit's entire product line in 1961-62 should have been scrapped out of ugliness.  GM, Ford, Mopar, and everyone else I can think of. 

And I think Mopar didn't produce many good looking cars between '60 and '67.  If Mopar was copying GM cars then they should have been copying different ones.  They had a great drivetrain by '63 but it took another 5 years for them to skin it in something attractive. 

 
I agree with a lot you said with the exception being that I think the 64 Sport Fury and the 65 Coronet and Satellite .
   The E - Bodies were nicely designed cars but quality of work when built was much , much worse than the B- Bodies
   and the B's were pretty bad .
  The modern Pony Cars are a bit different as far as quality goes . But the Chally is far too big . It is the same chassis as the Charger ,
weighs about the same too . Then you load on all the gimmicky do dads everyone seems to think they needs they become the fat lady at the circus . I talked with a salesman not too long ago about ordering a bare bones Chally . No A/C , cruise , stereo , etc . just all motor and bare nothing . He said Chrysler would never build that . I think if they went back to a car like the Road Runner platform they would sell more cars . But then they
wouldn't make all that money off the dumb gimmicky options people order .

[Mike DC]

I agree with a lot you said with the exception being that I think the 64 Sport Fury and the 65 Coronet and Satellite .
   The E - Bodies were nicely designed cars but quality of work when built was much , much worse than the B- Bodies
   and the B's were pretty bad .

Yeah there were some good looking Mopars between 60-67.  Just not enough overall.

As for E-body quality, that seems to be EVERYONE'S recollection about them.  Bad. 

The modern Pony Cars are a bit different as far as quality goes . But the Chally is far too big . It is the same chassis as the Charger ,
weighs about the same too . Then you load on all the gimmicky do dads everyone seems to think they needs they become the fat lady at the circus . I talked with a salesman not too long ago about ordering a bare bones Chally . No A/C , cruise , stereo , etc . just all motor and bare nothing . He said Chrysler would never build that . I think if they went back to a car like the Road Runner platform they would sell more cars . But then they
wouldn't make all that money off the dumb gimmicky options people order .

Gearheads always ask for hot fast strippers but most of the new car buyers do not IMHO.  The demand for that car would be tiny. 

It's like with 1990s Camaros/Firebirds.  They gradually ended up building the car that tons of people wanted to find on a cheap used car lot several years later.  But nobody was left buying them brand new.


But I do agree that the dealerships overload the hi-po models a notch or two beyond what the buyers really want.

[Cooter]

I think it would surprise Chrysler, err Fiat, just how many would order stripper Challengers AND a loaded one too...


The option should exist. What have they got to lose?

[JB400]

That is why SRT introduced the Core models.  They're not entirely stripped of all the goodies, but they have enough to draw a large segment of buyers that would rather have the most powerful engine but still like a/c and cruise.

And yes, they're selling real well.  Why else would SRT spread the idea to every product that they produce?

[Ghoste]

Now they need to promote them.  The again, for every large engined core model they sell they need to sell a couple of dozen Darts to keep CAFE happy.