BrewSwillis

New Challenger Spy Pics 8/10

28 posts in this topic

Dear Jesus,

Please don't let people turn this thread into another "Ch4LL3ng3R I5 TEH WAI 5uX0rXz" thread. :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Jesus,

Please don't let people turn this thread into another "Ch4LL3ng3R I5 TEH WAI 5uX0rXz" thread. :P

You already did!! :smilewide:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be awsome (and funny) if after all that the Challenger WAS a HARDTOP!?!?

After all, why always camo all over the B-pillar?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be awsome (and funny) if after all that the Challenger WAS a HARDTOP!?!?

After all, why always camo all over the B-pillar?

Maybe the engineers read forums now, and are messing with people by putting a fake B pillar on the test cars. :scratchchin: I hope so!! 8)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be awsome (and funny) if after all that the Challenger WAS a HARDTOP!?!?

After all, why always camo all over the B-pillar?

It is don't you remember seeing the bare body from the leaked plant pics?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um not only do I remembner the thread with the pics.

but it erupted into another thread where most fans of

modern cars were saying "so what... it's a B-pillar?!"

and "who cares"... well the B-pillar is ugly and I DO

CARE as will many Challenger customers.

I think it may be another case of a real world focus

group thing.... make people think you will dumb

down the product, after all any publicity is better than

NO publicity, right? it gets the internety buzzing and

then in the end you deliver the product and come out

smelling like roses!

IOf the Challenger & Camaro come out with B-pillars

I will be distusted & shocked... I might just NEVER

buy a new car ever! Or I'll buy a gently used 2006-ish

Mercedes CLK.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a B pillar in a performance sedan is cheap structural support.

Take the B pillar out and you either add weight or suffer structurally.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus removing the B pillar adds cost. The Challenger will sell out at $35k with a B pillar, dont know if it would at $50k without one.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

68, can you stop harping about B-pillars? You've ranted about this wierd fixation of yours for months, years. If you don't have anything meaningful to contribute to a thread, please don't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9/11---------------------------------------------RWD

Terrorists---------------------------------------B Pillar

They hate us for our freedom----------------Toyota SUX

Stay the course--------------------------------BOF

Is 68 actually GWB?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious whether it will be pillared with frameless glass or a hardtop....sure we've seen those photos from the plant, and there's that peak behind the camo of one of the spyshots that show one hidden behind glass...but the two of them are different...I think the leaked photo's pillar protruded too far out to be hidden by glass. Plus, they are going through a lot of trouble to camouflage that area. So I wonder :scratchchin:

Either way, I love the car.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry..... please return to your regularly scheduled fixin' of $h!ty modern cars....

no style, no substance, just the same old $h!.

I bet in 2002 there was more than one Mopar guy accused of

beating to death his complaints of FWD boring jelly-bean

sedans. I like to rock the boat. If no one rocked the boat we

would not have EVER had a (C5) 1997 Corvette, Kappas

would be just a whimsical story told by GM reps of what could

have been, in a parallel universe....

& you can bet your sorry ARSE that Zetas would NOT EXIST!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, camo is on the car, but it cannot hide the sexy proportions. Once again, I wish it were a $22k-$33k price range car, for its own good. 4.0 V6, 4.7L HO, 5.7 and 6.1L Hemis would make a nice healthy powertrain lineup, with 6 speed manual and 5 speed auto transmissions... and a convertible to round it all out.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, camo is on the car, but it cannot hide the sexy proportions. Once again, I wish it were a $22k-$33k price range car, for its own good. 4.0 V6, 4.7L HO, 5.7 and 6.1L Hemis would make a nice healthy powertrain lineup, with 6 speed manual and 5 speed auto transmissions... and a convertible to round it all out.

oblu, the 4.7 should never be put in another vehicle. Ever. That's got to be one of the $h!tiest engines on the market.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 4.7L is a piece of junk? I didn't know that. I knew about the 2.7L V6 problems.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the new '08 twin-spark version makes acceptable power, imo.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the new '08 twin-spark version makes acceptable power, imo.

Right, 290 or so hp is not $h!ty or underpowered.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much a piece of junk as it is underpowered and stuck in vehicles that are much to heavy for it. i.e: Durango, Ram, Dakota, etc. None of those vehicles should have an engine in them that's smaller than the 5.7 Hemi, IMO.

320 lb-feet of torque is not enough to move a pickup truck or SUV?

In 2007, Chrysler replaced the 4.7 liter V8 with a new version. Power went from 230 hp to 290 hp (and up to 320 lb-feet of torque) with that move; gas mileage went up, and noise and vibration went down. The new 4.7-liter V-8 features 5.7-Hemi features such as two spark plugs per cylinder, with a high 9.8:1 compression ratio, and better port flow; but it has a new slant/squish combustion system design.

Refinements included significant revisions to the induction system, reduced reciprocating mass via a lightweight piston/rod assembly, and reduced accessory drive speed. A new normally open valve lash adjuster system smooths the engine at idle, while electronic throttle control is needed for new stability systems. The engine will be manufactured at the Mack Avenue Engine Complex in Detroit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't when you have a Dakota that weighs 4500lbs, a Durango that weighs 5000lbs and a Ram that weighs 6000lbs.

Q: How much horsepower and torque did a stock 1998 Chevy 5.7l engine put out?

First answer by 66.35.99.84. Last edit by RoyR. Contributor trust: 2222 [recommend contributor]. Question popularity: 47 [recommend question]

Answer: The Factory 350 V8 Vortec has exactly 207 Horsepower and 235 Pounds of Tourqe

Source

Wow, how did those poor people get around in 1998 with 5.7L Chevy V8's in their trucks that only put out 235 lb-feet of torque? The answer: just fine. Those 1998 Chevy 5.7L engines had almost 100 lb-feet less torque then the current small Chrysler 4.7L, and were probably considered more than adequate for getting Chevy trucks around in 1998.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, how did those poor people get around in 1998 with 5.7L Chevy V8's in their trucks that only put out 235 lb-feet of torque? The answer: just fine. Those 1998 Chevy 5.7L engines had almost 100 lb-feet less torque then the current small Chrysler 4.7L, and were probably considered more than adequate for getting Chevy trucks around in 1998.

And damned near every 350 Vortec I owned delivered 17 mpg in mixed driving...in our Commander with the 4.7 we can get a whopping 12. And the 350 Vortec was NOT that adequate of an engine for that much weight...but it was 1000% better than the 350 TBI it replaced.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 1998 Silverado also only weighed about 4800 lbs. When a full sized Chevy only weighs about 200lbs more than a mid-sized Dodge, I think Dodge has a little weight problem.

A current Dakota Quad Cab 4x4 weighs 4552 lbs. A current Siverado Extended Cab 4x4 short box weighs 5265 lbs. A Dodge Ram Quad Cab 4x4 weighs 5273 lbs. The Silverado's 4.8L only has 5 more HP than the Chrysler 4.7L....but has 15 less lb-feet of torque.

It appears that Chevy has a weight problem also....or that Chrysler's new 4.7L is right on par with what other manufacturers are offering? :scratchchin: But of course when Chrysler has an engine with pretty much the same specs (or better torque in this case) as a GM engine, while pulling the same kind of weight around.....the Chrysler engine is "teh suXxOr!!1!!" :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, how did those poor people get around in 1998 with 5.7L Chevy V8's in their trucks that only put out 235 lb-feet of torque? The answer: just fine. Those 1998 Chevy 5.7L engines had almost 100 lb-feet less torque then the current small Chrysler 4.7L, and were probably considered more than adequate for getting Chevy trucks around in 1998.

Well heres another source that says thats wrong:

Base Engine Size: 5.7 liters Base Engine Type: V8

Horsepower: 255 hp Max Horsepower: 4600 rpm

Torque: 330 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 2800 rpm

That was 1998, almost 10 years ago.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/chevrolet...4434/specs.html

I picked the Tahoe, because they have the exact same engine, but the Tahoe has it as the standard engine. Don't praise Chrysler for finally catching up to what GM has been offering for 5+ years. GM's 4.2L I6 makes 290hp. GM's 5.3L has made 285hp/325 torque since 1999.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well heres another source that says thats wrong:

Base Engine Size: 5.7 liters Base Engine Type: V8

Horsepower: 255 hp Max Horsepower: 4600 rpm

Torque: 330 ft-lbs. Max Torque: 2800 rpm

That was 1998, almost 10 years ago.

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1998/chevrolet...4434/specs.html

I picked the Tahoe, because they have the exact same engine, but the Tahoe has it as the standard engine. Don't praise Chrysler for finally catching up to what GM has been offering for 5+ years. GM's 4.2L I6 makes 290hp. GM's 5.3L has made 285hp/325 torque since 1999.

Well, whatever source is actually right....the point I was making is that the new Chrysler 4.7L makes more, or as much power as an older large GM (and probably Dodge and Ford) V8. Which was considered to have plenty of power for their day......but now all of a sudden that power is considered to be inadequate in Chrysler vehicles....even when it matches GM's smaller base V8 (4.8L) in the same size (weight) vehicles.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now



  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room