New Charger races 69 Lee, who wins?

[1969chargerrtse]

http://bcove.me/a7y0la9j
I don't think the Lee has standard tires or suspension.
Awesome video, make it full screen. Watch the new car drop right down on the brake test.  Cool.  

[Drache]

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,78936.0.html 

[1969chargerrtse]

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,78936.0.html 

Ooops, thanks must of missed that?    Love the comparison video though.

[Kern Dog]

Factory stock, the new cars DO outperform our classics...... In most every aspect except appearance.

[MaximRecoil]

Factory stock, the new cars DO outperform our classics...... In most every aspect except appearance.

In braking and handling especially. For quarter mile times, there were classic muscle cars that were fast even by today's standards.

I think it is funny that the only new cars that look good to me are the ones that try to emulate the styling of cars from 40+ years ago (such as the new Challenger, Camaro, and Mustang). However, they still don't look as good to me as the real thing because they refuse to ditch all of the Ford Focus-era styling cues (e.g., chunkiness, tires with wimpy sidewalls, the obligatory flattened area of sheet metal around the wheel openings).

[Mike DC]

I don't think the Lee has standard tires or suspension.

Tires:  
BFG T/As, 14x7 front wheels and 15x7 rears.

Suspension:  
Stock front torsion bars, stock rear leafs.  The front swaybar was sometimes removed and I think that might be the case for this particular car.  The rearend was stiffened with cheap bolt-on helper leafs and aftermarket coilovers on the rear shocks.  Nothing was done to stiffen the front springs.  

The shocks were basic parts-store items from the time, they ran a few different kinds but nothing too exotic.  
The unibodies typically did not recieve subframe connectors or other stiffening mods.  

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

However, they still don't look as good to me as the real thing because they refuse to ditch all of the Ford Focus-era styling cues (e.g., chunkiness, tires with wimpy sidewalls, the obligatory flattened area of sheet metal around the wheel openings).

It's not that they won't ditch the modernizing touches.  It's that they CAN'T ditch them.

The chunkiness is the result of the demands of crashworthiness, unibody stiffness, better interior room demanded by modern consumers, etc.  The flattened wheelwells are purely aerodynamic concessions.  The tire sidewalls are purely for perfomance increases (and many people like the look better that way anyway).  

[MaximRecoil]

It's not that they won't ditch the modernizing touches.  It's that they CAN'T ditch them.

The chunkiness is the result of the demands of crashworthiness, unibody stiffness, better interior room demanded by modern consumers, etc.  The flattened wheelwells are purely aerodynamic concessions.  The tire sidewalls are purely for perfomance increases (and many people like the look better that way anyway).

What do these flattened sections around the wheel openings have to do with aerodynamics (I painted the front one in red to highlight what I'm talking about)?



It looks like nearly every vehicle made these days has had a few passes on a giant edge jointer on each side prior to leaving the factory.

If anything, the sharp angle created around the perimeter of those flat sections as it transitions from curved to flat is going to create additional disruption of airflow. Nearly all vehicles have had that styling cue ever since the Focus was introduced in 2000, with its so-called "new edge" styling. Before the Focus, everyone copied the '86 Taurus. The auto industry certainly loves Ford (ironically, the Taurus now sports the flat-edge Focus-style wheel openings).

To Dodge's credit, the new Challenger doesn't have the Focus-style wheel openings, but the new Mustangs and Camaros do (as do the new Chargers).

Chunkiness is not the inevitable result of providing roomy interiors and crashworthy chassis. Chunkiness of a matter of aspect ratios of the various shapes of the major body sections. Chunkiness can be traced back to the '00 Ford Focus too; a point where it really took off.

[Mike DC]

               
Oh, that part of the wheelwells is what you're talking about.  I agree, it's not necessary to do it that way. 


As for the chunkiness, I still call it a product of modern car design.  They want stiff unibodies that don't crush in the center and don't weigh a lot or use thick steel stampings.  They also want lots of interior room no matter what kind of car it is.  So they keep growing the dimensions of things. 

Look at the A-pillar of a 1960s musclecar compared to a modern musclecar.  The modern one is not made of steel any thicker but it's much bigger dimensionally.   

[MaximRecoil]

As for the chunkiness, I still call it a product of modern car design.  They want stiff unibodies that don't crush in the center and don't weigh a lot or use thick steel stampings.  They also want lots of interior room no matter what kind of car it is.  So they keep growing the dimensions of things.  

Look at the A-pillar of a 1960s musclecar compared to a modern musclecar.  The modern one is not made of steel any thicker but it's much bigger dimensionally.

A current Corvette for example is not chunky, in fact, plenty of sports cars are not chunky. A Corvette still has roughly the same aspect ratios as it did in '84, or even in '68. A Corvette is a 2-seater, but it shows that a front clip doesn't need to be chunky; and extend the length of the cabin, and you can have a back seat without making the car chunky. It is just a matter of design; how you choose to make the dimensions. The designers are choosing the chunky look for most vehicles these days because they are still in Ford Focus mode, 11 years after the fact.

There is no reason why a new Dodge Charger for example, must have a nose that looks like it came off an SUV; short, stubby, and thick; i.e., chunky (with a trunk section that is even shorter, stubbier, and thicker); it looks ridiculous in my opinion.

[Brock Samson]

 I beg to differ, Modern cars have dramatically reduced overhangs the cabins have been stretched to the wheels ("Cab-Forward" a Chrysler Invention that soon after turned up on the Altima and then every frontwheel drive machine.) and front pedestrian and offset impact bumber standards have been the rule since the turn of the century. The wheel wells' sculpting are a subjective aspect of modern cars, i first noticed them on the Audis, i belive they did them like that in the mid '90s to dramatize the four wheel drive aspect of their cars.   I prefer them to the droopy drawers aspect of alot of the new cars who's' rear wheel wells seem like a poor, tiny, punched out after thought. IMO.
PS: That Ma offers rear-wheel drive V-8 powered cars in this day of primarily front wheel drive and V-6 powered angry appliances is pretty sweet! If they didn't have to carry around an extra 3-400 Lbs. of mandated and expected safety convenience and noise deadening "Pork" they would soundly trounce any 45 year old design in any category.
I need to add that rollover standards meant the end to most Hardtop designs, which is one of the aspects of the older designs i miss most, along with hideaway headlights.

[Mike DC]

A current Corvette for example is not chunky, in fact, plenty of sports cars are not chunky. A Corvette still has roughly the same aspect ratios as it did in '84, or even in '68. A Corvette is a 2-seater, but it shows that a front clip doesn't need to be chunky; and extend the length of the cabin, and you can have a back seat without making the car chunky. It is just a matter of design; how you choose to make the dimensions. The designers are choosing the chunky look for most vehicles these days because they are still in Ford Focus mode, 11 years after the fact.

Yeah but look at the center of the Vette today versus the older ones.  Look at how wide the car is at the rocker panels now, and compare that to a C1 or C2.  That's the kind of necessary size increases I'm talking about.  It does a whole lot to make the car look blocky when they can't taper the sides inwards at the bottom and the sides must go pretty far down towards the ground.  It helps dictate how the rest of the car's sides & overhang areas must be shaped to line up with it. 

There is no reason why a new Dodge Charger for example, must have a nose that looks like it came off an SUV; short, stubby, and thick; i.e., chunky (with a trunk section that is even shorter, stubbier, and thicker); it looks ridiculous in my opinion.

I agree with you on that.  The continued use of the crosshairs just amounts to an unwillingness to take risks IMHO.  When the new Charger came out in 2006 the styling was no better than controversial (even outside us old Charger buffs).  Now it's 5 years later and they seem to be forgetting the initial reaction because the car has been successful as a whole.  They are treating the front end styling like it's an important asset and part of the car's identity. 

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

PS: That Ma offers rear-wheel drive V-8 powered cars in this day of primarily front wheel drive and V-6 powered angry appliances is pretty sweet! If they didn't have to carry around an extra 3-400 Lbs. of mandated and expected safety convenience and noise deadening "Pork" they would soundly trounce any 45 year old design in any category.

Agreed, modern cars have some serious advantages that are diluted by the weight increases.  The difference from old to new is more like 600-800 pounds in the case of the Detroit's big 3 retro musclecars.

I need to add that rollover standards meant the end to most Hardtop designs, which is one of the aspects of the older designs i miss most, along with hideaway headlights.

Rollover standards might have first caused hardtops to disappear years ago.  But it is probably the side-impact standards that have kept them gone in more recent years.  These days I think Detroit could throw enough steel strength at the A & C pillars to hold up the roof.  But they can't keep the sides of the car from caving in without that B-pillar.

 

[Brock Samson]

Excellent points Mike! 

[MaximRecoil]

I beg to differ, Modern cars have dramatically reduced overhangs the cabins have been stretched to the wheels ("Cab-Forward" a Chrysler Invention that soon after turned up on the Altima and then every frontwheel drive machine.) and front pedestrian and offset impact bumber standards have been the rule since the turn of the century.

I first heard the term "cab forward" to describe the Dodge Intrepid (1993). That car wasn't chunky in appearance.

The wheel wells' sculpting are a subjective aspect of modern cars, i first noticed them on the Audis, i belive they did them like that in the mid '90s to dramatize the four wheel drive aspect of their cars.   I prefer them to the droopy drawers aspect of alot of the new cars who's' rear wheel wells seem like a poor, tiny, punched out after thought. IMO.

I associate the flat-edge wheel opening with the 2000 Ford Focus because it was so popular, and it seemed to be about when everyone (including Ford on the rest of their lineup) started doing it. Soon it became almost obligatory. It is actually hard to find vehicles designed in the past decade or so that don't have that flat edge around the wheel openings. It is not that the look is inherently bad in my opinion, it is just so overdone now. The Focus also seems to embody the overall styling trends of the past decade, with its odd mixture of hard angles and curves (and chunkiness), which Ford referred to as "new edge design". Most '00s cars show strong Focus influence, in the same way that most '90s and late '80s cars show strong Taurus influence.