News:

It appears that the upgrade forces a login and many, many of you have forgotten your passwords and didn't set up any reminders. Contact me directly through helpmelogin@dodgecharger.com and I'll help sort it out.

Main Menu

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

Started by 440charger68, February 12, 2009, 07:03:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

440charger68

just need to know, my brother has a 70 challenger and i have a 68 charger neither of them are R/T but i just wanted to know. I know the charger is longer, but the challenger is wider by a few inches. What do you guys think which would have better handling? i mean we have all seen the movie bullitt hahah and maybe a few of us have seen Vanishing point, well more then a few lol. I heard the VX Charger out handled the VX Challenger, but i just want to know about the standard R/T
life's a garden, dig it.

69bronzeT5

Feature Editor for Mopar Connection Magazine
http://moparconnectionmagazine.com/



1969 Charger: T5 Copper 383 Automatic
1970 Challenger R/T: FC7 Plum Crazy 440 Automatic
1970 GTO: Black 400 Ram Air III 4-Speed
1971 Charger Super Bee: GY3 Citron Yella 440 4-Speed
1972 Charger: FE5 Red 360 Automatic
1973 Charger Rallye: FY1 Top Banana 440 Automatic
1973 Plymouth Road Runner: FE5 Red 440 Automatic
1973 Plymouth Duster: FC7 Plum Crazy 318 Automatic

Hemidoug

B bodies always handled better then the E bodies....E bodies are nose heavy, B bodies have more even weight distribution.... :Twocents:
71 R/T 440 6pak, 4spd Mr Norms GSD

Charger-Bodie

Quote from: Hemidoug on February 12, 2009, 07:16:03 PM
B bodies always handled better then the E bodies....E bodies are nose heavy, B bodies have more even weight distribution.... :Twocents:


Agreed! Stock versus stock a B-Body will handle far better. Especially with a Big-Block Ebody.
68 Charger R/t white with black v/t and red tailstripe. 440 4 speed ,black interior
68 383 auto with a/c and power windows. Now 440 4 speed jj1 gold black interior .
My Charger is a hybrid car, it burns gas and rubber............

69bronzeT5

Really? Why did they pick Cudas and Challengers for the T/A Series then? Probally because of the regulations maybe? :shruggy: It's a good thing I picked a '69 Charger for autocross. ;)
Feature Editor for Mopar Connection Magazine
http://moparconnectionmagazine.com/



1969 Charger: T5 Copper 383 Automatic
1970 Challenger R/T: FC7 Plum Crazy 440 Automatic
1970 GTO: Black 400 Ram Air III 4-Speed
1971 Charger Super Bee: GY3 Citron Yella 440 4-Speed
1972 Charger: FE5 Red 360 Automatic
1973 Charger Rallye: FY1 Top Banana 440 Automatic
1973 Plymouth Road Runner: FE5 Red 440 Automatic
1973 Plymouth Duster: FC7 Plum Crazy 318 Automatic

Silver R/T

http://www.cardomain.com/id/mitmaks

1968 silver/black/red striped R/T
My Charger is hybrid, it runs on gas and on tears of ricers
2001 Ram 2500 CTD
1993 Mazda MX-3 GS SE
1995 Ford Cobra SVT#2722


y3chargerrt

The AARs and T/as were in the trans ams series because it was a pony car thang.

Sublime/Sixpack

1970 Sublime R/T, 440 Six Pack, Four speed, Super Track Pak

Troy

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. :D 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
Sarcasm detector, that's a real good invention.

440charger68

huh thats vary interesting about the challenger and no sway bars
life's a garden, dig it.

Troy

Quote from: 440charger68 on February 12, 2009, 09:09:37 PM
huh thats vary interesting about the challenger and no sway bars
I could be off on my years but my 318 Barracuda had none and the 340 Challenger does.

Troy
Sarcasm detector, that's a real good invention.

694spdRT

Quote from: Troy on February 12, 2009, 09:19:12 PM
Quote from: 440charger68 on February 12, 2009, 09:09:37 PM
huh thats vary interesting about the challenger and no sway bars
I could be off on my years but my 318 Barracuda had none and the 340 Challenger does.

Troy


My 318 Challenger does not have swaybars either.
1968 Charger 383 auto
1969 Charger R/T 440 4 speed
1970 Charger 500 440 auto
1972 Challenger 318
1976 W200 Club Cab 4x4 400 auto 
1978 Ramcharger 360 auto
2001 Durango SLT 4.7L (daily driver)
2005 Ram 2500 4x4 Big Horn Cummins Diesel 6 speed
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited 5.7 Hemi

440charger68

 :hah: my younger brother has had that challenger for years and i did not realize till now, he will be dissapointed when i tell him :-\
life's a garden, dig it.

maxwellwedge


dads_69

I've owned a few rides, '68 R/T , '70 R/T charger and a '70 R/T Challenger plus many others. The Challenger handled okay, trust me, I put it to the test many times road racing, drag/street racing, back roads etc... The Chargers as well, ask around, some people will tell you, I scared the crap outta them in more ways than one driving.
Hands down, the Chargers handled best in a straight line, cornering and all out get up and go. All cars were big blocks with automatics and 3.55 gears.

Mark
Hey, you can hate the game but don't hate the player.

440charger68

Quote from: dads_69 on February 12, 2009, 11:10:30 PM
I've owned a few rides, '68 R/T , '70 R/T charger and a '70 R/T Challenger plus many others. The Challenger handled okay, trust me, I put it to the test many times road racing, drag/street racing, back roads etc... The Chargers as well, ask around, some people will tell you, I scared the crap outta them in more ways than one driving.
Hands down, the Chargers handled best in a straight line, cornering and all out get up and go. All cars were big blocks with automatics and 3.55 gears.

Mark
my dad had a few 68R/T chargers and also a strange 426wedge 4 speed challenger r/t se, it was wrecked though. was in my dads driveway and some illegals without a license or insurance totaled it by driving onto the lawn and hittin the challenger with there truck. he doesnt remember what handled better though
life's a garden, dig it.

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.
A friend of mine has a 426 Wedge in his '69 Road Runner here. Odd set up I always thought, but it does have massive trq. for sure. As fas as handling goes, not real sure, he barely takes it over the speed limit.
Hey, you can hate the game but don't hate the player.

Dans 68

Quote from: Troy on February 12, 2009, 08:52:53 PM
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. :D

O.K., I'll bite. What video? I'm thinking you have some XV "bootlegged" video of their testing.  :scratchchin:  How do I get a copy...? Hmmm?  ;D

And I'll vote that a b-body handles better than an e-body.

Dan
1973 SE 400 727  1 of 19,645                                        1968 383 4bbl 4spds  2 of 259

JMF

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

Mike DC


--  Aren't the 1970-up front sway bars the same diameter as the 1969-down ones?  That would functionally make the 1970-up ones a notch stiffer just by nature of the mounting setup.  It's not necessarily even an improvement to stiffen it, I'm just making an observation. 




--  Handling by feel is one thing, but by stopwatch numbers is something else.  The larger/heavier B-body probably feels more tossable because it's more predictable.  (Similiar weight but longer & more balanced per pound.)  But the E-body might still consistently kick its ass on the stopwatch in a pair of ideal zero-mistakes runs on the same track. 

The point is, sometimes a technically-slower-but-more-predictable car ends up being "faster" because the driver will consistently push it closer to its given edge every time.

 

Troy

Quote from: Dans 68 on February 13, 2009, 03:41:33 AM
Quote from: Troy on February 12, 2009, 08:52:53 PM
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. :D

O.K., I'll bite. What video? I'm thinking you have some XV "bootlegged" video of their testing.  :scratchchin:  How do I get a copy...? Hmmm?  ;D

And I'll vote that a b-body handles better than an e-body.

Dan
Dan, XV has a video that contains all the episodes of Dream Car Garage(?) where they sort of documented the process. You can buy your own copy for $5 or maybe I can talk them into giving us a few for giveaways/prizes.

Quote from: JMF on February 13, 2009, 04:11:39 AM
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
Sarcasm detector, that's a real good invention.

Hemidoug

"Handling" is more then just feel....handling not only includes how the car behaves in a turn, but how it behaves under deceleration going into a corner (braking) and acceleration coming out (power). The BIGGEST factor in how a car handles is the balance of the car, more so then track or wheelbase. The B bodies are much better in balance and wheelbase (longer is better) and thereby make a much better "Handling" car then the E bodies. It doesn't matter which engine as long as you compare apples to apples. The E bodies leave a lot to be desired when it comes to the car behaving under both braking and acceleration. The short trunk/short wheelbase along with the weight bias being more forward gives the E bodies a disadvantage NO MATTER WHAT. Now that being said a lot of things can be done to compensate for those disadvantages, but if the same were done to a B body the B body would still be the better handling car hands down. E bodies are not as lite as most people think.....they weigh just about the same as an equally equipped B body, with maybe 100-200 lbs separating the two.
71 R/T 440 6pak, 4spd Mr Norms GSD

69charger2002

i also would think a charger handles better than a challenger, all things equal. but neither break the g force bank lol
trav
i live in CHARGERLAND.. visitors welcome. 166 total, 7 still around      

http://charger01foster.tripod.com/

Sublime/Sixpack

Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 02:39:05 AM
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?
1970 Sublime R/T, 440 Six Pack, Four speed, Super Track Pak

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.....
71 R/T 440 6pak, 4spd Mr Norms GSD

dads_69

Quote from: Sublime/Sixpack on February 13, 2009, 11:44:54 AM
Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 02:39:05 AM
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
Hey, you can hate the game but don't hate the player.

Sublime/Sixpack

1970 Sublime R/T, 440 Six Pack, Four speed, Super Track Pak

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
68 Charger 383 HP grandma car (the orignal 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.
Hey, you can hate the game but don't hate the player.

Ghoste

Quote from: Troy on February 13, 2009, 09:51:32 AM

Quote from: JMF on February 13, 2009, 04:11:39 AM
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

Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 04:41:00 PM
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.
1970 Sublime R/T, 440 Six Pack, Four speed, Super Track Pak

dads_69

Quote from: Sublime/Sixpack on February 13, 2009, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 04:41:00 PM
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

Hey, you can hate the game but don't hate the player.

WingCharger

Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 08:16:30 PM
Quote from: Sublime/Sixpack on February 13, 2009, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 04:41:00 PM
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. :o :o :o

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.
70 Charger RT top bananna /68 Charger RT triple green

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.  :Twocents:

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 :smilielol:
Looking forward to get a full aluminum motor in there, together with a light front suspention, and 18 inch rims :2thumbs:

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!!! :icon_smile_wink:
Since we only live once, and all this is not just a dressed rehearsal, but the real thing............ Well, enjoy it!!!!

Sublime/Sixpack

Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 08:16:30 PM
Quote from: Sublime/Sixpack on February 13, 2009, 07:27:01 PM
Quote from: dads_69 on February 13, 2009, 04:41:00 PM
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.  :shruggy:   Like I said in an earlier post "its just a curiousity thing".
1970 Sublime R/T, 440 Six Pack, Four speed, Super Track Pak

Mike DC

QuoteTotally 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

QuoteI 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! :D
Since we only live once, and all this is not just a dressed rehearsal, but the real thing............ Well, enjoy it!!!!

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

QuoteIt'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 :D
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!
Since we only live once, and all this is not just a dressed rehearsal, but the real thing............ Well, enjoy it!!!!

440charger68

Quote from: Mike DC (formerly miked) on February 15, 2009, 12:44:00 PM
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. 


life's a garden, dig it.

chargerrt

Quote from: Troy on February 12, 2009, 08:52:53 PM
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. :D 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