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

1965 Dodge Concept car Charger II

Started by Mikesmoparperformance, October 08, 2009, 09:20:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mikesmoparperformance

Hi Guys,

I love this car just amazing not the hole car but just te back end of it beautiful
This looks way better then what they came up with on the production model for 66 and 67!
I think that if you put that back end on a 66 charger and leave the front on touch you have a COOL CAR!
and must longer.

What happend to this 65 charger concept car? was it destroyed or does it sit some where in a museum or with a Mopar collector?

I have found some photo's that we all have, but are there more photo's off it? or is this it!
maybe some one has more off this car?



MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


b5blue

I just noticed no blinkers in front yet it has the stalk on the column and no wipers?  :scratchchin:

Mikesmoparperformance

MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

The back tail light is more inside the body line and thats whats makes the back and cool!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

And this car has no bumpers well there are in the body of the car!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


b5blue

Someone here will know what happened to this.   :yesnod:

Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: b5blue on October 08, 2009, 09:59:28 AM
Someone here will know what happened to this.   :yesnod:

I hoop someone knows indeed! more of this car would be great thanks
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


ODZKing

Carl Cameron told me a few years back at Carlisle that they (MaMopar) would not have been able to use the B body wheel base.  In addition it would have been difficult to meet the (then) safety standards which were getting tighter and keep it affordable. As you pointed out ... no bumpers.
So basically it was financial.  As it was the Charger was close to (if not) the most expensive Dodge in their lineup that year.

Nacho-RT74

squared headlights weren't legal yet for that year on USA cars, just rounds. I think 77 was the first year squared headlights were legal, so would it be imposible to buid that one EXACTLY it is.

Thats the reason why USA made Mercedes have inserted round headlights on the squared headlight frame and glass

Maybe no front parking/turning lights because could it be built in the headlights like modern cars nowdays ? I can see something like that inside headlights on top ( unless a weird reflection )
Venezuelan RT 74 400 4bbl, 727, 8.75 3.23 open. Now stroked with 440 crank and 3.55 SG. Here is the History and how is actually: http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,7603.0/all.html
http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,25060.0.html

dodgecharger-fan

I wouldn't buy it unless they added a deck lid.  :icon_smile_big:

Mikesmoparperformance

MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: ODZKing on October 08, 2009, 10:17:09 AM
Carl Cameron told me a few years back at Carlisle that they (MaMopar) would not have been able to use the B body wheel base.  In addition it would have been difficult to meet the (then) safety standards which were getting tighter and keep it affordable. As you pointed out ... no bumpers.
So basically it was financial.  As it was the Charger was close to (if not) the most expensive Dodge in their lineup that year.


That is mostly with concept cars there are things that are not possible for production cars like  safety , but now a days it a show car
So things can be done now, what was not possible in that time!

So can the back end of that concept car be built on a 66charger I thing so!

That car looks indeed expensive just looking ad it, there must be a lot of work going in to it to make it like that!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


ODZKing

The tail (in those pictures) is much longer than on a first gen.  In fact it looks as though the only thing it shares with the Coronet is possibly the doors.  I'm sure it was purely cost cutting.
We purchased one of Cam's drawings of the prototype Charger.  It's signed by him and on my family room wall.
I'll have to take a picture of it to post but I have some pics of him (and them) on our website.
What a genuinely nice man.
http://www.retrorarities.com/Cameron.htm

Todd Wilson

It was probably a big block of clay you are looking at.


Todd

Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: ODZKing on October 08, 2009, 11:27:30 AM
The tail (in those pictures) is much longer than on a first gen.  In fact it looks as though the only thing it shares with the Coronet is possibly the doors.  I'm sure it was purely cost cutting.
We purchased one of Cam's drawings of the prototype Charger.  It's signed by him and on my family room wall.
I's have to take a picture of it to post but I have some pics of him (and them) on our website.
What a genuinely nice man.
http://www.retrorarities.com/Cameron.htm


I wish I had men him! Great photo's I can see the different designs off the charger! awesome
Yes it is longer but I think If they can make it back then it's also possible to make it agian!
Did Cameron know what became of the car later on?

I Wish I had the chance to meet him!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: Todd Wilson on October 08, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It was probably a big block of clay you are looking at.
Todd


can't be this car was on shows in 65!!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Mikesmoparperformance

@ODZKing  Nice Charger by the way looks great!
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Todd Wilson

Quote from: Mikesmoparperformance on October 08, 2009, 12:29:28 PM
Quote from: Todd Wilson on October 08, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It was probably a big block of clay you are looking at.
Todd


can't be this car was on shows in 65!!


Blocks of clay used to go to shows too!


Todd

Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: Todd Wilson on October 08, 2009, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: Mikesmoparperformance on October 08, 2009, 12:29:28 PM
Quote from: Todd Wilson on October 08, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It was probably a big block of clay you are looking at.
Todd


can't be this car was on shows in 65!!


Blocks of clay used to go to shows too!


Todd



O Well that chance things maybe it is I don't know.
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


Tilar

Quote from: Todd Wilson on October 08, 2009, 12:18:24 PM
It was probably a big block of clay you are looking at.


Todd


If I were to bet money on it, My money would be on you. Clay, fiberglass or something. I doubt it was a drivable machine. It is cool looking but the headlights don't look right for the era.
Dave  

God must love stupid people; He made so many.



ODZKing

I'm kind of liking that emblem on the hood.
I wish they'd go back to that instead of that goofy ram head.

Mikesmoparperformance

Quote from: ODZKing on October 08, 2009, 02:57:34 PM
I'm kind of liking that emblem on the hood.
I wish they'd go back to that instead of that goofy ram head.

Yeah Me to Looks way better.
what did Carl Cameron say about the car? did you ask him if it was a drivable car or not
then we would know!

@Tilar Fiberglass is a good option! for the design lines the car has with fiberglass easier to make( then steel) First Clay then make a mold off it for the fiberglass body.

only Carl Cameron would know this I think.
MOPAR OR NO CAR

1966 Dodge Charger 383 CI


ODZKing

To be honest, he never said either way if the Charger concept in the pictures you posted were a real car or clay.  Frankly, I never thought to ask.
BTW, thanks for the cudos.

teamroth

Quote from: dodgecharger-fan on October 08, 2009, 10:57:02 AM
I wouldn't buy it unless they added a deck lid.  :icon_smile_big:


I wouldn't buy it if they gave it to me....lol
:smilielol:
I'd rather die than go to heaven.