What do you think has better handling 68R/T Charger of 70R/T Challenger?

[Hemidoug]

I can tell you my 69 handles very well with all that motor up front....It is a little lighter then stock because of aluminum heads. I literally ran away from a buddy of mine who was driving a 67 Shelby gt350.....supposed to be one of the better handling machins of the era....he couldn't keep up with me on a very curvy road that runs about 10 miles through a state park. Most of the turns were 20-30 mph turns...which I drove through at 40-60 mph (LOL). Now wether it was driver or car who knows....but if the car wasn't up to the task driver wouldn't have made a difference.....

[dads_69]

In high school, my dad had a '68 R/T Hemi Charger. I remember it not handling well anytime of the day. Hit the gas pedal and side ways, burnouts, you name it, it was nuts, when I was able to drive it. So I guess that a minus 1 for B bodys, ha-ha.

But if you compare apples to apples, how well would a Challenger with 426 hemi have handled in comparison to your dad's hemi Charger?

I'm gonna go with * even worse*. 500 H.P. in a short wheel base = crazy nuts handling IMO. Never driven a Challenger w/a Hemi myself. I've driven a '70 Hemi Cuda, '66  Hemi Coronet, '69  Hemi Coronet, and ridden in a '69 Hemi Daytona. The drives were slightly mellow but fun, so I can't give a handling comment like I've put my cars through.

Mark

[Sublime/Sixpack]

I'm jealous Mark.

[triple_green]

I own a 68 Charger 383 HP car stock and a 71 Challenger Vert. I have hurt the handling by putting in a 426 hemi. But the challenger with a 440 and the full R/T suspension package handled much better than the Charger.

3X

[dads_69]

Don't be jealous, I was very fortunate at the time to have been able to have had those opportunities. I don't even own a mopar right now, first time in over 26 years. Now, well I own a pair of L's. Another mopar someday though.
There are other members on line here that have 100 times more great rides and stories for sure about rides in mopars.

[Ghoste]

Are you sure a Chally is wider? I thought the Chally and 68-70 Chargers were both 76 inches wide?

Are we talking car width or track width? I'd have to look up numbers for both.

Troy

Challenger overall width is 76.1 and front track is 59.7 with the rear being 60.7 inches.
Charger is 76.6 wide and front track at 59.5 and rear of 59.2 inches.  These measurements I took from a few road tess and they vary slightly from source to source but in the end the Charger is wider overall and the Challenger slightly wider on the track. 

[Sublime/Sixpack]

Don't be jealous, I was very fortunate at the time to have been able to have had those opportunities. I don't even own a mopar right now, first time in over 26 years. Now, well I own a pair of L's. Another mopar someday though.
There are other members on line here that have 100 times more great rides and stories for sure about rides in mopars.

A little envious would have been a better way to put it. I've just never driven a 426 hemi car. Lots of other factory high performance cars but the hemi car always seemed elusive. Its a curiosity thing I guess.

[dads_69]

Don't be jealous, I was very fortunate at the time to have been able to have had those opportunities. I don't even own a mopar right now, first time in over 26 years. Now, well I own a pair of L's. Another mopar someday though.
There are other members on line here that have 100 times more great rides and stories for sure about rides in mopars.

A little envious would have been a better way to put it. I've just never driven a 426 hemi car. Lots of other factory high performance cars but the hemi car always seemed elusive. Its a curiosity thing I guess.

Drive a 340 6 pak car or 440 6 pak car. That will get your blood going. My buddy here has a '69 440 6 pak SuperBee. I help him tune it once in a while, holy crap. He lets me drive it cause he doesn't trust himself. I told him why me!?
I let it all hang out when I drive it though, black smoke blowing out the tail pipes, from sitting/loading up, motor starts to wind up and man, hang on. More like a straight line go fast kind of car vs. cornering.
I had a '72 340 Cuda not long ago, handled ok but weak also IMO.

Mark

[WingCharger]

Don't be jealous, I was very fortunate at the time to have been able to have had those opportunities. I don't even own a mopar right now, first time in over 26 years. Now, well I own a pair of L's. Another mopar someday though.
There are other members on line here that have 100 times more great rides and stories for sure about rides in mopars.

A little envious would have been a better way to put it. I've just never driven a 426 hemi car. Lots of other factory high performance cars but the hemi car always seemed elusive. Its a curiosity thing I guess.

Drive a 340 6 pak car or 440 6 pak car. That will get your blood going. My buddy here has a '69 440 6 pak SuperBee. I help him tune it once in a while, holy crap. He lets me drive it cause he doesn't trust himself. I told him why me!?
I let it all hang out when I drive it though, black smoke blowing out the tail pipes, from sitting/loading up, motor starts to wind up and man, hang on. More like a straight line go fast kind of car vs. cornering.
I had a '72 340 Cuda not long ago, handled ok but weak also IMO.

Mark

The wider tires on that car make it better handling than others. Back in the day when the car was in magazine articles, they called it a slalom car.

[JR]

I've owned my 2nd gens for 10 years now, and my buddies have E bodies so I can say a little something here.

Arguing about which one handles better is like arguing over who is hotter. Barbera Walters or Rosie O'donnel. Their both 40 year old, 4000 pound, primitive, flimsey, and technically outdated. Its a completely pointless arguement. One of the worst things for handling is weight, and both of these cars are almost four thousand pounds. Thats alot of mass to move around.


Excluding modded cars, such as Mr. Angry, they just dont stack up in the turns. Not to say they can't, but stock, neither is worth worrying over. I ended up with a 240sx and an older vette to get my cornering kicks out of.

That said, I still love Mopar and wouldn't trade them for the world.

[Mike DC]

I basically agree.  On a road course, the weight in the nose sinks a big-block E-body like the Titanic.   The Charger probably feels better-handling simply because it's big & heavy enough to water down that particular issue a little more than the E-body.


But, if you had a 400-pound motor and an AlterKtion front end in either car . . . 

[Ghoste]

I don't think any of the big block ponycars handle all that great and in my opinion they would all be on a par with their intermediate sisters.  Stick a smallblock up in the front of any of them though and I think they'd hand the ass to most any big block intermediate in a timed slalom. 

[Mike DC]

     
Oh, definitely.  The iron BB motors are much too heavy to earn their keep on a road course car.  These motors are straight-line deals.  Particularly when you consider how powerful a SB motor can be with modern parts. 



Pay attention to modern sports car world, and they see ANY 8-cylinder motor as being somewhat of a weight liability. 

We're so proud of our "lightweight" 440 just because we slapped some aluminum heads onto the iron block.  Meanwhile, the modern sports car guys are pissed off when they have to settle for any iron in the motor at all . . .  on their smallblock V8s.   


---------------------------------------------------------------------


Ever read about GM/Rover's old early 1960s aluminum-block V8 motor?  They still use the things for hot-rod material in europe.  Those things can get 250+ cubic inches of displacement while weighing something like 320 pounds.  (That's about HALF what a stock 383-440 weighs.) 

Imagine one of these things in a lightened-up Charger race car.  Maybe with an aftermarket K-frame to dump the rest of the non-critical front end weight.  Crank up the engine's compression ratio a ton to make back some of the lost HP/torque . . . It would probably feel like you took a stock Charger and made the entire drivetrain's weight magically disappear.

[suntech]

Totally agree with the BB weight. That combined with small rims/high tirewall makes that nose sink like a hammer!! Have been driving my car for a few days now, with 383, 14 inch rims, and 235/60, and it is useless!!! Handles like a drunk elephant
Looking forward to get a full aluminum motor in there, together with a light front suspention, and 18 inch rims

Another thing Mike pointed out, is that a more forgiving car, that maybe is theoretical slower, might end up faster around the course, simply because it is easier to drive it closer to it´s limits. And car BALANCE is a lot more important than the weight!!
A big car, and a driver with "cajunes" behind the wheel has surpriced people more than once!!!

[Sublime/Sixpack]

Don't be jealous, I was very fortunate at the time to have been able to have had those opportunities. I don't even own a mopar right now, first time in over 26 years. Now, well I own a pair of L's. Another mopar someday though.
There are other members on line here that have 100 times more great rides and stories for sure about rides in mopars.

A little envious would have been a better way to put it. I've just never driven a 426 hemi car. Lots of other factory high performance cars but the hemi car always seemed elusive. Its a curiosity thing I guess.

Drive a 340 6 pak car or 440 6 pak car. That will get your blood going. My buddy here has a '69 440 6 pak SuperBee. I help him tune it once in a while, holy crap. He lets me drive it cause he doesn't trust himself. I told him why me!?
I let it all hang out when I drive it though, black smoke blowing out the tail pipes, from sitting/loading up, motor starts to wind up and man, hang on. More like a straight line go fast kind of car vs. cornering.
I had a '72 340 Cuda not long ago, handled ok but weak also IMO.

Mark

Just for the record, my '70 Charger is a factory 440 Six Pack car (have owned it for 34 years now), and my '69 Super Bee also has a 440 Six Pack in it, plus have driven many high performance factory cars (including the best that GM offered). Its just that for some reason the opportunity to drive a 426 hemi car never popped up.     Like I said in an earlier post "its just a curiousity thing".

[Mike DC]

Totally agree with the BB weight. That combined with small rims/high tirewall makes that nose sink like a hammer!! Have been driving my car for a few days now, with 383, 14 inch rims, and 235/60, and it is useless!!! Handles like a drunk elephant
Looking forward to get a full aluminum motor in there, together with a light front suspention, and 18 inch rims

Another thing Mike pointed out, is that a more forgiving car, that maybe is theoretical slower, might end up faster around the course, simply because it is easier to drive it closer to it´s limits. And car BALANCE is a lot more important than the weight!!
A big car, and a driver with "cajunes" behind the wheel has surpriced people more than once!!!

That's what I mean about weight & balance.  The car that's technically faster is not always the more fun street car when you get into it.

----------------------------------------------------


I'd love an alloy motor too, but the cheapest they go seems to be $4-5K just for the engine block alone.  No fun there. 

However you can get a normal BB wedge about 100 pounds down by swapping everything else over to aluminum even though the engine block itself is still iron.  (Alloy water pump housing, intake, heads, cast-iron exhaust manifolds swapped over to headers, etc.)   That's smallblock weight territory right there, and we haven't even moved the battery or anything else on the front end yet.  The master cylinder & power steering box are another source of weight loss. 


I remember once seeing a test somewhere ("Car and Driver" maybe?) concluding that 17x8" rims w/45-series sidewalls handled best of all sizes, and that was after testing both larger and smaller sizes.  Make the sidewall TOO small, and you don't get enough warning before the lateral grip lets go entirely.  Even Indy racers want a couple inches of sidewall on their wheel/tire combos. 

[suntech]

I remember once seeing a test somewhere ("Car and Driver" maybe?) concluding that 17x8" rims w/45-series sidewalls handled best of all sizes, and that was after testing both larger and smaller sizes.  Make the sidewall TOO small, and you don't get enough warning before the lateral grip lets go entirely.  Even Indy racers want a couple inches of sidewall on their wheel/tire combos.

Totally agree that you need some sidewall, to get some warning before loosing it completly, and ofcause to get it drivable on "normal" roads without screwing up the rims twise a day. I also think a Charger needs a little sidewall to look good. A 275/35 on a 18 rim (front)gives a good 3 inch of sidewall, and that has to do! I need clearance for my 14 inch rotors!

[Mike DC]

You know what's ironic, though?  I think cars with smaller wheels/tires are actually more fun sometimes.


Nobody likes a badly-balanced car with dangerous oversteer/understeer or anything.  But the raw amount of grip offered by the contact patch . . . there's something to be said for not having it too huge when you're just goofing off in the car.  You can get near the limits of the car without going so fast that you nearly kill yourself every time it breaks loose. 

It's not politically correct to say this, but IMHO a floppy-sprung small-tires little econobox can be more fun than a tight sports-car platform. 




It's the same principle as huge rear dragging tires -  We hack the rear end of the car to death to fit bigger tires to "hook it up."  And then we spend the other half of our budget trying to build a motor big enough to break those tires loose on command anyway.    Seems counter-intuitive to me. 

[suntech]

It's not politically correct to say this, but IMHO a floppy-sprung small-tires little econobox can be more fun than a tight sports-car platform. 

Totally agree Mike

The cars we  had here back when i got my license, was front motor, maybe a 2 litre, rear wheel drve, and 185/70, on 5,5 rims.
That was FUN, and gave you good practice in finding the road, looking through the side window
Not the safest,fastest or smartest thing to do, but you got to learn how to handle a car, and that stuff comes handy later on in life!

[440charger68]

You know what's ironic, though?  I think cars with smaller wheels/tires are actually more fun sometimes.


Nobody likes a badly-balanced car with dangerous oversteer/understeer or anything.  But the raw amount of grip offered by the contact patch . . . there's something to be said for not having it too huge when you're just goofing off in the car.  You can get near the limits of the car without going so fast that you nearly kill yourself every time it breaks loose. 

It's not politically correct to say this, but IMHO a floppy-sprung small-tires little econobox can be more fun than a tight sports-car platform.  \
Vary vary true... im a freshman in college and i work at the serrano golfcourse where i live and im havin fun with those golfcarts hahah i have come so close to flipping those things. My friend has a 81 honda accord 5 speed we thrashed that thing until it blew the head gasket, he bought it for 200 dollars




It's the same principle as huge rear dragging tires -  We hack the rear end of the car to death to fit bigger tires to "hook it up."  And then we spend the other half of our budget trying to build a motor big enough to break those tires loose on command anyway.    Seems counter-intuitive to me. 

[chargerrt]

The Challenger is lighter but shorter so I think it's probably more nose heavy. I would think that a small block Challenger should handle better than a big block Charger. Although, when XV tested "stock" cars prior to modifications the GTX handled noticeably better than the Cuda (which I believe was a big block but don't quote me). I'll watch the video again. The key is what the configuration is/was. A big block car obviously got the heavier torsion bars and Charger had a front sway bar in any configuration. A small block Challenger has wimpy torsion bars, no sway bars, and small brakes... unless you got a 340 car which had all HD stuff. T/As had a rear sway bar as well I believe.

Cody, I believe the Trans Am cars had pretty strict requirements (particularly engine size). The 69/70 Mustang is pretty large/long though so I guess it came down to what the manufacturer wanted to run. I know the Challenger was used overseas because the Cuda was too short.

Troy

I remember reading that about the XV cars, but I don't recall ever seeing a video.  Where can I see that?

EDIT:  Nevermind.  I should have read through the whole thread before posting hahaha