2011 Charger R/T Vs Real General Lee

[Drache]

http://www.insideline.com/dodge/charger/2011/2011-dodge-charger-rt-vs-the-general-lee.html

*I did a quick search and didn't see this so I posted it, sorry if it's a repost*

[Patronus]

At least the guy driving the '69 had a moustache.

[chargd72]

Yeah, well take a computer from 40 years ago and match it up with what's available today.  Or any electrical device, or appliance for that matter.  Of course they will consistently be out performed thru natural timeline advancements.  However, anybody in this forum and a lot of other people out there would take the '69 over the 2011 anyday. 

[Brock Samson]

 no word on the build of that '69,.. the stopping distance of the new one is pretty respectable being as it's so damn heavy, roughly 3-400 Lbs more than the '69, not bad for a sedan, I wonder how the SRT/8 Chally would do... 
thanks for posting! 

[Richard Cranium]

However, anybody in this forum and a lot of other people out there would take the '69 over the 2011 anyday. 

I don't associate with anyone who would turn down a good 69.

[Back N Black]

But, can a 2011 jump a creek???

[Drache]

But, can a 2011 jump a creek???

Let's find out! Any volunteers? 

[Richard Cranium]

Are we sure that's a "real" General Lee and not a clone?

[BananaDan]

According to the article, it is one of the remaining few survivors from the show.

Dan

[Drache]

According to the article, it is one of the remaining few survivors from the show.

Dan

Verified by Cooter himself.

[Mike DC]

   
The GL is 3700 lbs.  The new car is 4300 lbs.  Wow.

[Richard Cranium]

   
The GL is 3700 lbs.  The new car is 4300 lbs.  Wow.

Just like everything in America today; it's supersized.

[bull]

How shocking it is to learn that technology has advanced in the past 42 years.

[G-man]

Thats pretty pathetic for the new charger. I mean, 43 years later, with 17" wheels and bigger brake options and better everything that is available, its not much better than what was offered back then. All that shows me is that the 69 is actually better. If we were to take todays techonology and add to the 69, im sure it would wipe the floor with the new one.

[Road Dog]

I thought the new Charger would do better in the cones. I'd much rather have the more hands on car.

[tan top]

According to the article, it is one of the remaining few survivors from the show.

Dan

survivor from the show    ,  no telling the mechanical  condition  should of run it against a completely restored  OEM type resto   

nice car the 2011 , but not a charger 

[Sabre]

I always hate it when they compare a General Lee whether it's a clone or a suvivor compared to a modern car.  Or if they list the "stats" of the General Lee like they did on the DVD's.

For instance the General Lee in that video has a 440, it's not exactly in tip top shape.  It's 0-60 is 6.2 okay fine but the General Lee on the show wasn't just some custom painted 69 Charger.  People seem to forget this.  I know the car on the show was in a way mythical, it could jump great distances undamaged but my point is this..

-The General Lee on the show had a souped up 440.  Just how souped up is never revealed, but there are clues peppered throughout the show.  "A little game of pool" General Lee does 25mph-55mph in 2.5 seconds.  In "Duke vs Duke" General Lee races against Cooter's 69 Chevelle that is said to have more than 500hp.  Not to mention episodes where Bo and Luke are testing new cam shafts, custom sway bars, shocks etc.  Basically the General Lee is a highly modified dirt track race car.

So I feel these comparisons are unfair because they are not really comparing a "General Lee" they are comparing a bone stock Charger with a GL paint scheme.  I'd like to see a "General Lee" with a souped up 440, custom sway bars, etc do the same test and see what the results would be.

[DustinSimmonds]

I thought it was entertaining, and i'm leaving it at that! 

[Just 6T9 CHGR]

Any one know the GL?  Board member?

[tricky lugnuts]

"I thought it was entertaining"

I agree: I always love these kind of comparisons.

For my the new Charger did pretty poorly, having a full 40 years, almost half a century, of engineering and technology in its corner.

Give me $35K or $40K and I think I could build a 1969 Charger that would blow away the 2011 - - - in maybe everything except fuel mileage.

I always liked this video, 2010 Challenger vs. 1970 Challenger with Hotchkis upgrades:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvnRmtsQJM8&playnext=1&list=PL05616FB65BA369E2

[DustinSimmonds]

Also keep im mind this is a 2011 R/T not a SRT, which is still only a 392 cubic inch. Not quite a 440. 

[Cooter]

I especially liked the comment about "Dating women with teeth" in the 2011 Charger....Obviously, the person who wrote this up, didn't watch the show, or is more ignorant than this comparison....No matter how they try, the "new" Charger will never compete with the early one even if they are just sitting still....Try as they might, can't be done...

[Nacho-RT74]

Also keep im mind this is a 2011 R/T not a SRT, which is still only a 392 cubic inch. Not quite a 440. 

but tecnology difference... barellyyyyy 40 years difference

( however, even older, more cool!!! )

They can compare also a 69 Charger with any 1929 Dodge ( also 40 years difference ) and check the results.

which one will get better results ?

[DustinSimmonds]

What I mean is, with the advancement of tech, a 345 cubic inch 2011 engine can beat a 440 cubic inch 1969 engine. Imagine what a modern 440 would be able to do! 

[Kern Dog]

Its short sighted and ignorant to complain that "New cars should have been better by now".  The automakers are under tremendous pressures to produce vehicles that satisfy far more requirements TODAY than they did in 1969. Sure, the 2011 cars dont do zero to 60 in 3 seconds. They also dont pollute nearly as much as the old cars. They also dont need to have tune ups every 15,000 miles. They dont require 110 octane "Ethyl" fuel. They dont drain the gas tank at a rate of 8 miles per gallon. They STOP in distances 3 car lengths SHORTER from 60 mph. Theres your advancements you can see.
I have only been a member here a short time, but at 45 I have been around cars my whole life. I own a classic car that has been updated with better suspension, brakes and steering . It rides and handles well but cannot compare to the COMFORT that a new car offers. Long rides in a car like mine are really best for real car guys and most of Americas men do NOT fit into that category.
The feds have placed unrealistic demands on automakers to lower emissions, increase safety and improve fuel economy. How the hell can you do all of that? Crumple zones, air bags and side impact beams add weight which hurt fuel economy. Tune an engine to produce fewer emissions and it too slow to move the car up to a safe speed. Its a juggling act.
You think that the automakers dont notice that lighter cars get better fuel economy and perform better? Where would you like to reduce the weight? Fiberglass body panels? Sure... they would only cost a few hundred dollars more to produce PER car, but then do they compromise the crash worthiness? The new cars have miles of wiring to control the numerous computers on board, plus the air bags, power seats, windows, moonroof, adjustable side mirrors, rear window wiper, etc. The new cars have heavy sound deadening material because we have grown to appreciate the reduced noise levels.
In 1985 I worked at a Chevy dealer and the new 3 cylinder Chevy Sprint was just introduced. This is the car that later became known as the Geo Metro. In 85 it was rated at 49 mpg city and 53 highway with the 5 speed trans. Yes, those numbers are correct. It was a very small, very light car that was cheap to buy and own, built by Suzuki. Oddly, it was actually a peppy car to drive as well. As the years rolled on, more crap was added, it got heavier, slower and the mileage ratings went down until it went out of production sometime in the 90s. Part of what killed the car was Americans wanting more creature comforts, but the feds were also to blame. Increases in safety and crash test standards were steadily being implemented in the 90s and the Sprint/Metro would have been too expensive to update to meet the requirements.
With my political beliefs, I am one of the last people that you will hear saying that we need MORE government involvement, but I think that it actually is BECAUSE the feds stepped in that cars today are faster, safer, less polluting and get better mileage than My Charger. Yeah, The new hot rods are heavy. Buy one, strip it down and see how you like driving it THEN!

[Mike DC]

 

Modern cars just have too much everything.  It's not enough to build a sports car that rides quieter than an old sports car.  Nowadays the sports car has to do it better than the best old luxury car used to.  Same with everything else it does, from sound system, to insulation, to temp control, to gas mileage, to crashworthiness . . .

We could potentially build modern cars that do one job WAY better than they used to, and also do all the other jobs somewhat better than they used to.  I would love that.  But the market doesn't want that.

   

[Kern Dog]

SMALL segments of the market DO want lightweight performance.
Can you imagine a stripped down 6.4L Challenger?
Rubber floor mat, manual windows (NOT much lighter than power, by the way) manual vinyl seats, without  A/C . Sorta like the 68 HEMI Dart/Barracuda cars...Maybe a legitimate 11 second car that still runs clean and gets 25 mpg on the freeway. Not bad.

[Mike DC]

I remember a drift-car team that was using a production 4dr Charger unibody, and they managed to get the final drift car 1000 pounds lighter than the dealership car.  Pretty impressive loss when you remember than the drift car basically needs to keep the full suspension & drivetrain and also gets an extensive rollcage.   

[bull]

Any one know the GL?  Board member?

Or more importantly, the VIN. Right Chris?

[mikesbbody]

However, anybody in this forum and a lot of other people out there would take the '69 over the 2011 anyday. 

I don't associate with anyone who would turn down a good 69.

I'll take the 69 Thanks 

[Drache]

SMALL segments of the market DO want lightweight performance.
Can you imagine a stripped down 6.4L Challenger?
Rubber floor mat, manual windows (NOT much lighter than power, by the way) manual vinyl seats, without  A/C . Sorta like the 68 HEMI Dart/Barracuda cars...Maybe a legitimate 11 second car that still runs clean and gets 25 mpg on the freeway. Not bad.

Dodge was supposed to have a Drag Pak option for the Challenger including a V-10 engine under the hood. No idea if they ever came out with it.

[earthquake68]

I'm the evil opposite of safer cars. I KNOW I'll get hammered for this, but over population is a problem too. Build the older style car and let the idiots kill themselves off that don't know how to drive. Accidents don't "just happen". Somewhere there was a large error in judgment. I've been accident free for over 20 years of driving. That includes a half million miles in a commercial vehicle and many winters up in Pennsylvania. MOST of the vehicles I've driven DON'T have anti-lock brakes, ride control, air bags, or even air conditioning. I know how to avoid a collision. It takes patience, discipline, and vigilance. How close do you follow the guy in front you? At say 55 mph, is there 5.5 car lengths between you and the guy in front of you? No? ...You dumb@$$, that's called tail gating. You need anti-lock brakes. Don't say it's impossible to maintain that distance. I've done it for over 20 years. Do you still do the speed limit or still speed when the road is wet? Yeah, you dummy, you need the traction control computer. The government stepped in because the general public is getting dumber. We need technology to compensate for them. Either they die in a car crash or die in a natural disaster. The universe won't let over population happen. We aren't killing ourselves off enough anymore so whatever power you believe in is doing it for us. Earthquakes, tsunami's, wild fire, floods, etc. The biggest peeve I have is someone saying we need safer cars. We don't! We need safer drivers!! When a person comes in my shop and says, "My brakes are making a noise" and I find they've been metal to metal for so long, half the vents in the rotor are worn away, it aggravates me. That means that some oblivious senators son is gonna do the same thing and die in an accident and presto! We have mandatory brake thickness sensors on cars. No @$$hole!!! PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR CAR!!! Leave the responsibility where it belongs! In the driver's lap!

I'm a gear head, not a car guy, not a motor head. I'm a die hard gear head. I would rather smell gasoline and exhaust through the open window from the loud exhaust of a big block through a four speed, than quietly listen to classical music on my digital surround sound 1,000 watt car stereo with the A/C blowing in my face. My daily driver truck right now doesn't even HAVE a working radio. The tractor trailer I drove had the radio stolen. and I drove over the road for TWO YEARS in silence. I don't need technology to compensate for me or my poor habits. I don't fool with climate control settings, I don't fool with seat adjustments, or the stereo controls. I just drive when I get behind the wheel. Keep your damn government off my hotrods and pay attention to YOUR driving so we won't need all this legislation for the automotive industry.

Ok, I think I'm done now. Sorry for the long winded rant, ....well, no I'm not. It's just how I feel.

.....and I'd take the '69 over the new one ANY day for the record.

[Road Dog]

Completely agree with you. I'm accident free in driving old cars since the 70's. I've lost brakes twice (e- brake too) and a stuck accelerator as well.
I think modern cars with all the crap on them has made for non-thinking lazy drivers.

[tan top]

Completely agree with you. I'm accident free in driving old cars since the 70's. I've lost brakes twice (e- brake too) and a stuck accelerator as well.
I think modern cars with all the crap on them has made for non-thinking lazy drivers.

i think put the average 17 - 25-30 year old in a 40 year old muscle car  or any rear wheel drive with out ABS & stuff , & see how long its takes them to have a wreck ! especially in the wet 

[DustinSimmonds]

Completely agree with you. I'm accident free in driving old cars since the 70's. I've lost brakes twice (e- brake too) and a stuck accelerator as well.
I think modern cars with all the crap on them has made for non-thinking lazy drivers.

i think put the average 17 - 25-30 year old in a 40 year old muscle car  or any rear wheel drive with out ABS & stuff , & see how long its takes them to have a wreck ! especially in the wet 

*cough* I'm 19 *cough* I can handle them just fine.

[bull]

Completely agree with you. I'm accident free in driving old cars since the 70's. I've lost brakes twice (e- brake too) and a stuck accelerator as well.
I think modern cars with all the crap on them has made for non-thinking lazy drivers.

Yup, make the cars fool proof and they're just make a better fool.

[tan top]

Completely agree with you. I'm accident free in driving old cars since the 70's. I've lost brakes twice (e- brake too) and a stuck accelerator as well.
I think modern cars with all the crap on them has made for non-thinking lazy drivers.

i think put the average 17 - 25-30 year old in a 40 year old muscle car  or any rear wheel drive with out ABS & stuff , & see how long its takes them to have a wreck ! especially in the wet  

*cough* I'm 19 *cough* I can handle them just fine.

   
was not ment to offend any one , just saying someone who has grown up driving modern front wheel drive even something  that is 20 years old is superior in driver aid  compared to our type of cars , s
seen it  many times

[MaximRecoil]

I'm the evil opposite of safer cars. I KNOW I'll get hammered for this, but over population is a problem too. Build the older style car and let the idiots kill themselves off that don't know how to drive. Accidents don't "just happen". Somewhere there was a large error in judgment.

First, accidents can "just happen". A mechanical failure can cause an accident with no error in judgment required, as can a deer/moose/whatever placing itself suddenly into your path. For example, I hit a deer out of the air once as it was in the process of jumping across the road at night, precisely into the front of my truck which was going ~55 MPH.

Second, the other guy's mechanical failure and/or error in judgment can cause you to be in an accident right along with him. A typical accident that involves multiple vehicles usually only has one that was at fault.

If idiots only ever harmed themselves, no one would worry about e.g. drunk driving, and that presents a problem for your "let the idiots kill themselves off that don't know how to drive" line of reasoning.

[Kern Dog]

Earthquake 68:
I like your manner of thinking. I dont want more government involvement either. Its not just the increased safety that is standing in the way of Darwinism... Look at the modern pharmaceutical products, early cancer detection and the sharing of information we never had before.
My life, or at least my FACE was saved by an airbag in 2007. I was travelling down the road when an illegal hispanic without a license broadsided me and deflected me onto a concrete filled steel pole. The bumper was "horseshoe'd" and the Hemi was shoved into the firewall. BOTH airbags deployed. I was completely unhurt. I was also NOT at fault. I agree that we need safer drivers, but sometimes the safe cars DO protect innocent people.

[Mikesmoparperformance]

Awesome I love it!! Looks like LEE 3 is Alive and Well That car was also a 440 ci R/T as well
Thats kidding thats not LEE 3 But a nice Real General lee I don't know the car by the way Any one know the owner?
Cool test the 69 Charger wins every time!

2011 is nice car but still not a Charger

The 69 charger wins ad a cool factor why do the test Everybody knows that haha
Cool to see do

[MaximRecoil]

Awesome I love it!! Looks like LEE 3 is Alive and Well That car was also a 440 ci R/T as well
Thats kidding thats not LEE 3 But a nice Real General lee I don't know the car by the way Any one know the owner?

I don't know who owns it, but I assume it is the R/T that Wayne Wooten almost kept for himself when he did that deal with Warner Brothers in the early '90s. Out of the 17 General Lees in that deal, there was only one R/T, but it was rough and the chassis had been tweaked from a jump or something. He was going to keep it for himself until he was shown the nice-condition first unit "closeup car". Assuming that's the car, it must have been refurbished; had its chassis straightened and some bodywork done at least:

Finally, in March of 1991, the studio called and said the deal was done, come and get the cars! Wayne was soon back in California to oversee the loading and delivering of the cars to their new homes. When Wayne arrived, 17 General Lee Chargers had been neatly lined up, ready for shipment, looking much better than the first time he saw them.

The car Wayne picked for himself was one of the rougher ones to be found, the only R/T Charger in the lot. It was a sad sight though - it had one '68 fender, numerous dents and battle scars, and the underside was scrunched by a jump it had apparently done. The transportation boss showed up just as the loading began and asked Wayne if he had seen his car yet. Wayne said yes, pointing to the wrecked R/T. "No way! That's not your car Wayne, that's your car over there" he said, pointing to another much nicer car. To keep it short, Wayne ended up with one of the original Chargers used for close-up filming, which is itself a whole other story.

Link

I don't see how it could be any General Lee other than the R/T that was among the 17, because those 17 cars make up the vast majority of series General Lees still known to exist, and of the ones known to exist that were not among those 17, I don't think any of them are R/Ts.

[UH60L]

SMALL segments of the market DO want lightweight performance.
Can you imagine a stripped down 6.4L Challenger?
Rubber floor mat, manual windows (NOT much lighter than power, by the way) manual vinyl seats, without  A/C . Sorta like the 68 HEMI Dart/Barracuda cars...Maybe a legitimate 11 second car that still runs clean and gets 25 mpg on the freeway. Not bad.

Dodge was supposed to have a Drag Pak option for the Challenger including a V-10 engine under the hood. No idea if they ever came out with it.

Pretty sure they did, but I think it was a bit spendy, and as I recall.....not street legal.  So basically you have to be able to afford a brand new race car that you can't drive anywhere, and need to haul to the track.