Sixty8, let's analyze that comparison:
Front:
The grille on the new Challenger is cheaper looking with the cross hairs, but they're necessary to keep it branded with the current Dodge grille theme. The headlights are similar, just updated to today's standards. Fog light placement is the same. The lower fascia is dropped a bit more than the original, but it looks even lower since there isn't a chrome bar under the grille/headlights. The new Challenger's lower opening is larger too, and lower as mentioned.
Side:
The windows lack the chrome trim of the older Challenger. The body is nearly identical, though I'd say the body on the new one is less muscular. Body line is the same. Contour of the greenhouse and windows are approximately the same. Looks like the same size wheel openings, but bigger wheels (it's 2007).
Even the size and placement of the side reflectors are the same.
Rear:
I'd be willing to say that even the designers on the new Challenger got bored with their design and made a really terrible rear end compared to the original. The original was very muscular and the new one is very plain and easy to Photoshop. The reverse light placement is terrible and the taillight panel is very plain Jane. The rear isn't really a carbon copy at all compared to the front and side, but it definitely lacks the spirit and enthusiasm that a true muscle car demands.
Overall, this thing better be ballsy in power and refinement because its design isn't what I expect out of a new Challenger. What is it challenging? The 1970's design was a hell of a lot better. I'm honestly unsure of why someone would buy one of these over a Mustang GT, GT500, or Camaro unless Dodge really impresses us with something we definitely don't expect. However, being that it's Dodge, a company I've lost nearly all my respect for, I don't see them coming out with anything better for the Challenger than Ford or Chevy has/will with the Mustang and Camaro.