I watched a review of the new Charger Sixpack. And then I looked at comments and all of them said how it sucked because it has an i6 rather than v8.Yet the whole time I thought if this car had say a Nissan badge and they called it a Skyline everyone would call this car great.
>>28629938Most of the people commenting this weren't going to buy one in the first place for any number of other reasons (chief among them being not having the money) and are looking for an excuse not to that makes them look cool.The other reason is that the entire reason why muscle cars are socially legendary in the first place is because they had V8s. That was the cheapest way of delivering large amounts of power, so that's what American manufacturers went with. European sports and touring cars were making large amounts of power with super-expensive and complex 6-cylinders as they do today, but the American desire for cheap but powerful cars necessitated large V8s instead, so that's what people grew attached to.We can now make more power out of lighter and smaller engines. I own a V8 E-body and I'm 100% certain that the Charger Sixpack would smoke the vast majority of non-modified classic muscle cars, including mine, but nobody actually cares about legitimate performance gains. They care about the mythical lineage of V8 coupes and sedans.
>>28629938The real reason to hate is that it's bigger and weighs even more than the out-going model and weighs more than regular 4 door EV's now. The only thing that makes sense in a boat like that is a a loud and obnoxious v8.
people who seethe over the 6 are bandwagoning children who ride the busi6, v6, and v8 are the simplest engines you can have with piston overlap which is how you produce the high torque figures and punchy demeanor needed from a sports car.6s have always been treasured for high revs and durability for endurance racing making them more popular in european style racing while v8s are better for high torque applications like oval and drag racing. that said after the fuel crisis buick ran v6s in nascar sportsman class and dominated the v8s because the 6s were much lighter. it says a lot that the base model V6s of today have basically the exact same performance as the top or near-top level v8s of the golden era, the pentastar is the weakest of the three and it's still basically equivalent to a 383 and a hurricane would literally evaporate a 440 or 426 e-body.
>>28629938Muscle cars were always about raw, brutish power. Not efficiency or practicality.I6’s are GREAT, but they are not the same as a throbbing massive veiny v8.
>>28629992>Muscle cars were always about raw, brutish power. Not efficiency or practicality.Categorically false. They were introduced as a market compromise for people that wanted a sports car but needed a family car. A big sedan with two rows of seats and space for your luggage that could haul your ass to work and the kids to school and groceries from the store at 90+ MPH. The entire segment sprung into existence because actual honest-to-god sports cars were too inefficient and impractical for the American consumer.
>>28629995>A big sedanCoupe* but whatever. Some of them were sedans too.
I'd love a 6 cylinder muscle car. What I don't want is a 6 cylinder running 50 pounds of boost to propel a 7000lb car with an automatic transmission for the pleasure of paying $65,000. The supra would've been fantastic at $40k. The 400z would've been amazing at $40k. A 2 (or even 4 door because people ant that for some reason) with an NA 6cyl, or even a turbo 6 pushing a 3700lb car for $35-40k would be ideal. I don't think theres an inexpensive coupe or hatchback with an i6 for cheap on sale today.
>>28629938>6 cylinder>muscle carsYou answered your own question.
>>28629938>if this car had say a Nissan badge and they called it a Skyline everyone would call this car greatnot the people that want V8 muscle cars
>>28629996Ah yes, the iconic 4 door Mustangs, Challengers, Chargers, Barracudas, Novas, Porschess, Datsuns, GTOs, Camaros, and Grand Nationals. Who could forget.
It starts at $10,000 more than the outgoing Challenger R/T. People aren't going to give a shit about how impressive the numbers are when the target market is priced out of ownership.
>>28630021>the iconic 4 door Mustangsthe mustang was based on a 4-door car to begin withalso the fox platform was available as a 4-door and wagon albeit neither of those bodysyles were a mustang explicitly.
>>28630021>Porschess, DatsunsNot muscle cars.>GTOsYes actually, there were 4-door GTOs. Every GM A-Body muscle car had a 4-door variant; this includes the Chevelle. The Chrysler B-bodies (Satellites, Coronets, Furies, etc) also all had 4 door variants.
>>28629992>Not efficiency or practicality.if you believe the ad copy sure but the cars are more practical and fuel efficient than what passed for hardcore sports cars back then which made them more accessible. the miata of the day was a lotus elan or like an ac cobra that barely had a roof. with a challenger or charger you got a big "normal size" tin top car with the power to weight ratio and getup of the little imported plastic roofed one.
>>28630027>>28630028>UHHH ACKSHUALLYYeah great that 1 model year they tried 4 doors and nobody bought them because it was gay dumb retarded and stupid (like you) so its never considered to be an iconic 4 door muscle car.
>>28630040>that 1 model yearNo, these were platforms. This was an era where you could either buy a trim that had a preset list of parts or you could fill out a checklist that gave you anything that could fit on the platform in any configuration. There are, in fact, factory 4-door muscle cars. It's not about it being "iconic," it's about (You) arguing over a typo that was corrected literally the next post and wasn't even wholly incorrect in the first place.Also, how the fuck are you going to talk about "iconic muscle cars" while mentioning fucking PORSCHES AND DATSUNS? Those are FOREIGN SPORTS CARS.
>>28630040>Yeah great that 1 model year they tried 4 doorsevery single car you posted either has a 4-door variant or is itself a 2-door variant of a 4-door car
>>28629938I don't hate it because of the i6, its actually one of the things I loveI hate the new charger because it weighs as much as a goddamn truck despite having none of the utility of one
>>28630085The weight of the ICE version really surprised me actually. Where did it all come from?
>>28629938>i want a boat with a big oversized V8>ok here's a tiny six cylindergee i wonder why
>>28630152>tiny>it's still 3+ liters and larger than any other country's engines
>>28629938No one likes having something and losing it. If it was a Supra or Skyline and always had a turbo 6 cylinder then that's different than having a V8 and having it taken away.
>>28630155relative to a 5.0 mustang or a 6.2 hellcat that's an economy caryes, they are good engines in their own right. but they don't belong in a muscle car
>>28629938They don't. they hate Italian rebadges pretending to be muscle cars.>if this car had say a Nissan badge and they called it a Skyline everyone would call this car great.Weebs would be even more upset. you think they want an Italian rebadge pretending to be a japanese car? the LX cars were the last good vehicles under Chrysler, and now they're gone.
>>28630003/thread
>>28630165>relative torelatively a 3.6 or a 3.0 is closer to a 5.0 than a 1.4 isthe loss of displacement is also a loss of mass and that actually increases power up to a point. the lighter engines have sharper throttle response and the whole car gains better handling, you still drive the thing in a rather elbows-out sort of way that other cars don't have the road presence to achieve. > but they don't belong in a muscle carfun fact: in concept art from the late '60s the e-bodys were envisioned as turbine cars until those engines didn't pan out, which is specifically why the charger and challenger (and rr, etc) have that big wide open grille like a jet intake. the engine doesn't matter. it's the presence of the thing. a muscle car is simply a maximalist sports car eschewing peak performance for astonishing road presence. it can come from any culture or have any engine. the lamborghini countach for example, is a muscle car, by definition. the nissan skyline is a muscle car. we don't think of them as that because we are not from those countries so those cars are exotic when a mustang is not, but they're the same fucking thing really.
>>28630225i mean let's be real a corvette is not a muscle car but a lifestyle car, or as we call them "hairdresser's cars"
>>28630227the joke goes that non-v8 "pony" cars are hairdresser carsnice try tho
>>28630239>plastic 20 oz mountain dew bottle body, floppy sideways leaf sprung, generally malfunctional cobalt steering wheel piece of shitvs>actual functional automobile made by actual humans and not satanic michigander lizard people
>>28630245you forgot>ring leader
>>28630249i'm not going to get into that shitfling but personally i think the laptimes of unattainable car specs are irrelevantlike it's interesting to see what a particular platform can do with infinite batman prep time but only the actual production car laptimes should ever be relevant to benchracing. a low production factory variant doesn't count as a production car. i also agree that adding a rollcage makes it non-production except in cases where it's a legal requirement over a certain performance level like nhra.
>>28630253corvette has high production numbers
>>28630260ish
>>28630270cope
>>28630220> a muscle car is simply a maximalist sports car eschewing peak performance for astonishing road presence. it can come from any culture or have any engine. the lamborghini countach for example, is a muscle car, by definition.This is so unbelievably untrue. Muscle cars were supposed to be a viable fusion of a sports car and a family-ready daily driver. They had big fuckoff engines because they were cheap and the market demanded that they be cheap, because if they were too expensive you'd price out your key market and anyone that could afford a car like that would be uninterested because they were all buying specialty sport imports like the 911 to complement their daily cars. The Countach wasn't even remotely in the same realm of intended use or affordability. You have a mildly better case for the Skyline GTs, but that line was more directly intended for actual sport driving rather than an attempt at creating a daily car that could be sport driven.And if you don't believe me, then you can hear it directly from the mouth of Dodge's marketing department instead; they knew what people wanted:>The seating-for-six Charger comes with a new full-width front seat.>And Charger's still the family-sized sports car. Lots of room with trunk to match.
>>28630288>This is so unbelievably untrue. Muscle cars were supposed to be a viable fusion of a sports car and a family-ready daily driver.out of necessity simply because they took existing big car platforms and "downsized" them into sportier forms instead of constructing whole new platforms, and marketing thus had many angles with which to praise and sell the products. companies largely constructed cars they thought people would actually buy instead of being hamstrung by regulatory crap like average economy. muscle cars as we know them now existed merely as a consequence of existing automotive design trends and were not some kind of wild new idea at the time. little car big engine combos go back to the dawn of the automobile.it has nothing to do with affordability, really. the top of the line even back then was rather pricy. these were the halo cars of their day after all.the cars that were affordable were the lower spec straight sixes and little v8s that some claim aren't muscle cars, yet that is what i am being sold here with claims of an affordable family car.>. The Countach wasn't even remotely in the same realm of intended use or affordability.as far as italian sports cars go it was, not to say lamborghini is cheap at all but it is actually a tractor company and has a similar blue collar rub-it-in your face sort of attitude as an american manufacturer. further, it is a small car with a very big engine and even though it's no slouch in performance it trades some aerodynamics for its visual appeal and sound, just like a muscle car. no, it's not a fialy car or very practical, but that's not the italian way of doing things, is it? it's as practical as a fiat 500, which is an average contemporary practical italian car, and so the countach fills the same niche in italy that a dodge challenger t/a does in 1970 america.
>>28630392>little car big engineThey weren't little though; they were mid-sized cars, a.k.a. a modern full-size car. They were anywhere from 3000-4000 pounds. And you said it yourself: they were building cars that people thought they would actually buy, and what *were* those cars? Comfortable, high-capacity cars that were often far more feature-rich than people give them credit for.>it has nothing to do with affordability, reallyYes it did; why do you think they were using V8s? They were cheaper than the similar-power supertuned 6 cylinders found in foreign imports. If you offered an American coupe at import prices the elite would have simply laughed and continued to buy the far more prestigious imports. Were they pricey? Yes, but not NEARLY as pricey as a foreign sports car. A 1966 GTO Sports Coupe was a little under $3000. A 1966 Thunderbird was roughly $4500. A 1966 Porsche 911 was SIX-THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. $2000 more than a Thunderbird, over TWICE as much as a GTO. And that's without mentioning the bespoke sports cars of the era, which were in the five-digit range.>as far as italian sports cars go it wasThis is like comparing a suburban house in Columbus Ohio with the cheapest mansion in Beverly Hills.
>>28629938I think it's copying the Australian six pack chargers that had a 265 ci hemi inline 6
Why stop at a V8? Why not a V10? V12? V16? V24? >W-well it's about muh compact packaging and weightFuck your lawnmower engine, no replacement for displacement.
>>28629938They don't hate V6 muscle cars. The V6 Challengers/Mustangs/Camaros sold extremely well. They hate overpriced 5,000lb barges that don't compete with the previous model (which there are plenty of to compare.)
>>28630468The Hurricane would be based if they put two of them together at the crankV12 muscle let's go. Quickest way to get americans back on board with the engine.
TT i6s are based and will be faster than the old Hemi.
>>28630530Thats what a lot of people are missing: the outgoing Hemi had 460hp. The mid power level i6 has 500. The top has like 650.
>>28630745Would it really have killed you to spend 5 seconds googling those figures before you posted?
>>28630249Porsche offers Manthey parts at the dealer. This is the mother of all copes.
>>28630746It may have, why risk it though?
A lot of sixes do not get much better mileage than eights. In the US it was the same for fours. Inexpensive and usually low usually cars used sixes and fours so they were looked down upon. Like other replies have said it was a cheap way for the big three to get a smoother running engine even if six cylinders are more efficient. EVs have caused a reality check in the performance car market since they can offer superior performance for less cost.
>>28629938No cool vroom vroom noises
>>28630911>A lot of sixes do not get much better mileage than eights.every currently available n/a v6 engine gets at least 5mpg or more better than its v8 stablemate without resorting to gay shit like cylinder deactivation or skip shift
>>28630426>They weren't little though; they were mid-sized cars, a.k.a. a modern full-size car.they were compact at the time, stop trying to equate modern era to back then. it was a different time with different sensibilities but people still cared about cars being easy to park, easy to see out of, not costing a gajillion dollars to run and own, especially since they didn't last long past 100k>Yes it did; why do you think they were using V8s?because they were there? V engines were developed because the inverse square law mandates you can only make an inline engine but so big before it loses enough torsional rigidity to be reliable. nobody back then thought "i will put a v8 in it to be traditional" they put a v8 in it because no other engine type of the time could deliver the performance demanded. that is no longer the case. > If you offered an American coupe at import prices the elite would have simply laughed and continued to buy the far more prestigious imports.both the original and current gen challenger enjoy this kind of prestige and exclusivity by being usdm-only cars.you are too hung up on some kind of weird social conditioning and don't realize the nicest house in columbus and the cheapest mcmansion in beverly hills are in fact the same fucking house in two different locations
>>28630176why do people keep repeating this nonsensethis car has nothing that comes out of Italy wtfit doesn't exist a car in production that this charger is based on
>>28630745The outgoing Hemi can make 600hp NA
>>28631033And the incoming hurricane can make 540 from the factory. There have been teaser crate engines of like 800. Whats your point?
>>28631039My point is that the Hurricane needs turbos to make that power.Turbocharge the Hemi and you start seeing more ridiculous figures for a fraction of the manufacturing cost.
>>28631054>My point is that the Hurricane needs turbos to make that power.HEH YEP,,, NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT,,, IT DONT MATTER YOUR LITTLE HONDUH MAKES 900 HORSEPOWER WITH 500 POUNDS OF BOOST, MY '67 SOUNDS BETTER AND DOES IT WITHOUT ANYTHING BEING RAMMED INTO IT LIKE YOUR WIFE,,,
>>28629938They're just butthurt the I6 is smoother, more potent, and more efficient than their boomer gigantic V8s with 240 hp.Ameritards are braindead.
>>28630911>A lot of sixes do not get much better mileage than eightsyou're probably comparing a 4.3L V6 to a 5.0L V8 or something.The fuel consumption between a 3.0L I6 and the outgoing Hemis is massive.
>>28630784Tob geg
>>28631247Hardly 'massive' outside the hellcats
>>28630951>they were compact at the timeNo the fuck they weren't; you know what was compact at the time? COMPACTS. You could buy a Ford Falcon. You could buy a Corvair. You could buy a Dart. You could buy a Beetle. Why DIDN'T people buy these cars? Because they wanted MORE ROOM AND SEATING.That's the entire point; if the market wanted "big engine small car" they would have shoved 390s into Falcon chassis and called it a day, but they *didn't* do that and the few instances in which you get things like 440 Darts are seen as legendary outriders and not the markets as a whole. As the marketing proves and as the *cars themselves* prove, there was a utility and size aspect that American consumers wanted. Not only that, but the manufacturers TRIED this initially; the Thunderbird was an American sports car through and through, and all of the market testing revealed that people were saying "we love what you're doing with this, but we want a back seat and luggage space." Ford gave them that, the Thunderbird sold gangbusters, and here we are today.>they put a v8 in it because no other engine type of the time could deliver the performance demanded*For the price the market allowed and for the car sizes that people demanded. Don't you get what I'm saying here? Muscle cars were NEVER about "maximum no-frills performance," because if you wanted that you'd shove a 6-cyl in a 2000-lb go kart like the Europeans did back then and still do today. It's about squeezing AS MUCH PERFORMANCE AS POSSIBLE out of a family-sized car that can carry you and your friends and all of your golfing equipment.>both the original and current gen challenger enjoy this kind of prestige and exclusivity by being usdm-only cars.I'm not talking about modern cars. I'm talking about the pricing versus prestige of cars in the muscle era itself. Please re-read my post.I don't think you know anything about the automotive history of the United States.
>>28631369And another thing; if it wasn't about pricing, why weren't they shoving V10s in these things? Why not V12s? That shit wasn't undiscovered technology; they were building them in Europe.The answer is simple: PRICE. They were FAMILY CARS that were supposed to be affordable by families and young professionals that couldn't afford a daily driver and a sports car at the same time, and were durable enough to withstand morning traffic without shitting itself like a foreign sports car and inexpensive enough to maintain when things go wrong. That's it. That's the formula. That's why they look and are the way they are, that's why they were built on the platforms that they were, that's why they came with weight-adding frills and doodads like bench seats and hideaway headlights and severely suboptimal styling drag and that's why manufacturers marketed them the way that they did. Anything beyond that is boomerlore propagated specifically to make rustbuckets sell at overvalued speculative prices at shitfests like Barret Jackson.
>>28631389>, why weren't they shoving V10s in these things? Why not V12s? because there is far more to engines than raw power you pseudointellectual boob. why don't we have v32s or inline 128s?you know nothing about cars much less >the automotive history of the United States.you're conflating some weird spiritual romantic boomer view of these car that only came decades later with the actual reality that they're just normal contemporary american cars. using "big v8s" wasn't special, where do you think they came from? trucks and full sizes.
>>28631416>because there is far more to engines than raw power you pseudointellectual boobYEAHLIKE PRICING>you're conflating some weird spiritual romantic boomer view of these car that only came decades later with the actual reality that they're just normal contemporary american cars. using "big v8s" wasn't special, where do you think they came from? trucks and full sizes.You're the guy literally drawing a straight line between these fucking things and lambos while I scream about them being FAMILY CARS at the top of my lungs.I was going to offer an in-detail reply but it's clear you're wasting my time and clearly can't read.
>>28631426they are sports cars made from family car platforms by applying more horsepower than necessary. das it mane. americans don't make european sports cars because they just don't make european style cars, when they do like amc tried to do they don't sell in huge volume.>YEAH>LIKE PRICINGwhy do you think things cost more than other things, just because they used more metal?there was still clearly a level of sensibility and feasibility when it came to a muscle car so they didn't put in more complex engines than necessary>You're the guy literally drawing a straight line between these fucking things and lambosto an italian a camaro is equally as exotic as a miura would be to an american of the time. the thought process behind each car is the same, the emotion evoked by the car, it's artistic intent is the same, even though they are wildly different machines, made by different people in different cultures. getting so worked up over this shows you have a weak mind and you aren't worth debating anyway so you're welcome to leave my thread and not come back. thanks for your capitulation.
>>28631456>americans don't make european sports cars because they just don't make european style cars, when they do like amc tried to do they don't sell in huge volume.Dude, the reason why they didn't sell was because AMERICANS WANTED MORE SPACE AND A BACKSEAT. THAT'S WHY THE THUNDERBIRD BECAME A TWO-ROW CAR. Jesus.>there was still clearly a level of sensibility and feasibility when it came to a muscle car so they didn't put in more complex engines than necessaryHOLY SHIT THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FOR THE PAST 60 POSTS YOU STUPID FUCK.>the thought process behind each car is the sameA MIURA IS NOT, WAS NOT, AND NEVER WAS INTENDED TO CARRY YOUR GROCERIES AND TAKE YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY ON VACATIONS. ITS TRUNK WAS 5 CUBIC FEET. IT BARELY FIT A SUITCASE.>to an italian a camaro is equally as exotic as a miura would be to an american of the time>to an italian a camaro is exotic>to an italianI'm gonna stop right here because I think the rest of this thread can see why I'm fucking pissed at your retarded ass. Capitulate yourself off a cliff.
>>28631482are you okay dudego lay down jesus christso mad you cannot see the forest for the trees about a topic that functionally does not matter one iota
>>28631031its on the alfa romeo Giulia platform.
>>28629938>6 cylinders>Muscle CarPick one.
>>28630524I just want my 85 G-Body back..............
>>28629938This thing is dud regardless of the powertrain imo. Dodge had a golden opportunity to address a lot of the criticism about the outgoing model namely the weight and handling. What did they do? They fucked it all up by making it somehow even heavier and more boat like. Even if they left the powertrain alone but got the weight down to around 3800lbs, you’d have ScatPacks damn near running 10s in stock form. They deserve whatever they get for being fucking stupid>t.Hellcat owner
>>28629938>6 cylinder muscle carsno such thing.
>>28629938A Skyline don't weigh over 4000lbs.A 3L 6 cylinder will always sound rice. That's not American Muscle for the last American Muscle. I don't make the rules.
>>28629938There are a lot of great cars with six cylinders. The problem with the charger is that it's an obese brick piece of shit.I mean just look at this https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15141213/1993-ford-mustang-cobra-vs-1993-pontiac-firebird-formula-1993-chevrolet-camaro-z28-comparison-test/Even back in the days of 'lead sleds' not a single one was over 3.5k.
>>28630225Whoa the car with more power and less weight is faster, shocking news.
>>28629938I6s are poverty engines>but in Europeprecisely. poverty engines.
>>28631947>Even back in the days of 'lead sleds' not a single one was over 3.5k.440 Chargers were ~3.8k. 429 Bosses were almost 3.9k. Big Block Chevelles and Monte Carlos can come in at around 3.8k as well. The golden age had plenty of heavy bastards, especially if they were fully-optioned.
>>28630227I mean lets be real, you suck dicks for a living and you can quote me on that.
>>28631997if that were true i'd be able to afford a corvette
You both are fags and pony cars came about when the stuck truck engines in cars, full stop. And this in on brand
>>28631970The Mustang was originally a 6 cylinder car, so was the corvette.
>>28632061>truck engineslike the ford 200 straight six
>>28632065Yes exactly like that
>>28630227>corvettes are not muscle carscorrect.>corvettes are hairdresser's carsincorrect.
>>28629938thread is filled with euros coping because they have no idea what a muscle car is. This is evidenced by the fact that they made this piece of shit and its a gigantic failure.
>>28631456You're so fucking stupid.
>>28629938>Why do americansMost people are non car enthusiast NPCsThey have some basic programming inserted into their brains about cars that come from internet memes, and never think beyond that.However there are legitimate reasons, a v8 is needed to compensate for the weight and size.
>>28633163cry about it faggot
>>28634672this makes so much sensea lambo owner made fun of you, didn't they.
>>28633163Cope - not everyone in this board drives a 2L japanese grass mower.
>>28630220>the loss of displacement is also a loss of mass and that actually increases power up to a point. the lighter engines have sharper throttle response and the whole car gains better handling, you still drive the thing in a rather elbows-out sort of way that other cars don't have the road presence to achieve.>fun fact: in concept art from the late '60s the e-bodys were envisioned as turbine cars until those engines didn't pan out, which is specifically why the charger and challenger (and rr, etc) have that big wide open grille like a jet intake. the engine doesn't matter. it's the presence of the thing. a muscle car is simply a maximalist sports car eschewing peak performance for astonishing road presence. it can come from any culture or have any engine. the lamborghini countach for example, is a muscle car, by definition. the nissan skyline is a muscle car. we don't think of them as that because we are not from those countries so those cars are exotic when a mustang is not, but they're the same fucking thing really.cope displacementlet
>>28630052imagine....
>>28635084displace deez nuts in your mouf
>>28630165>relative to a 5.0 mustang or a 6.2 hellcat that's an economy carAn economy car with an engine that can make 750 hp a downpipe, other few bolt ons, and a tune. A tuned 3.0L B58 mogs 5.0's and hellkitties
>>28629938Because Detroit was built on all-american V8's.
>>28629938I6 is riced the fuck out. Also it's op% recycled plastic.
>>28631977Everything you mentioned is 1,000lbs lighter than the new Charger
>>28629938If it has a twin turbo then there's the long term reliability issue compared to a NA V8
>>28635862Not contesting that the new Charger isn't heavy. Just contesting the idea that "none of them were above 3.5k," which is total bullshit. There's even a fully-optioned '70 Hemi Charger that's on record as being almost 4.1k.https://www.dodgegarage.com/news/article/heritage/2023/05/top-banana-1970-hemi-charger>These were no lightweight cars! A bare-bones 1970 Charger R/T had a factory weight listing of 3,605 pounds, and when studying the original window sticker (which lists the weights of the various options) this Top Banana Charger weighed in at 4,029 pounds. The HEMI engine alone was listed as adding 232 pounds over the base engine.
>>28629938
All they had to do was make a new aluminum 5.7L block with forged internals and sell it that way. Maybe bump power to 420hp but that's it. Have it built to handle boost from the factory and keep it relatively underpowered stock. Then have Direct Connection offer a turbo/supercharger option for it with a warranty. Wouldn't even need to worry about making hellcats yet since it would be lighter and can make the same power with boost (which they should know by now if they have any business being manufacturers).Instead of building the 6.4L 392 engine this time around they could just go all in and sell a 426 Hemi. I feel like there are ways for this car to succeed without making a ton of engines.
>>28629938It weighs over 1,000 lbs more than its competitors. It would have been a boat at even 3800 lbsHow is it so heavy anyway? Are the chassis and body panels made of lead????
>>28638092>I feel like there are ways for this car to succeed without making a ton of engines.They should have taken advantage of the fact that they essentially made a platform. If you can put an EV drivetrain and an ICE drivetrain in the same car that allows for all sorts of wacky antics. Imagine being able to have i6, V8, and EV options with a parts and features checklist for each. Fully-loaded cruiser i6? Check. Barebones drivetrain-only EV? Check. Middle of the road V8? Check. Imagine them selling kits for weird shit they don't want to do themselves, like hybrid setups or ICE-compatible regen braking or all-manual dashboards with screen / computer delete.That would have gone a long way towards not only legitimizing the platform but also legitimizing the idea of an "EV Muscle Car." They sell you a drivetrain with nothing in it and give you all the tools to strip out even more unnecessary shit and beef up whatever you want and jailbreak any performance limiters, all with the plausible deniability of "haha, well WE didn't know they would do that!" that they leveraged so well back in the day.
>>28629938its not that six cylinders in principle are shat on but putting it in a muscle car just takes away from its original identity. why want a muscle body if it doesnt sound like a rumbly muscle car? why would you want a V8 skyline either? it just takes away from an established type of car
>>28638100Some cars have gotten rid of spare tires in the name of saving weight (and space.) maybe Stella this is acknowledging their engineering prowess and put like a spare Miata in the trunk?
>>28638100>5 inch longer wheelbase>almost 10 inches more total length>mandatory AWD and automatic transmissionthese are the main reasons it's heavier
>>28629938Dodge fucked up and first released it as the most insulting EV of all time, mainly because the stellantis CEO of the time had a personal hatred of V8's. Because of that, people won't accept the car unless it gets a V8
>>28630227Many are saying this
>>28632064The First Mustang that was built for Henry Ford II before they even went on sale to the public was a K-code 289 3spd auto coupe.
>>28639237IIRC police Challengers / Chargers had both AWD and Auto with a V8 setup and were still way lighter than this. There's no way ten inches alone is adding hundreds of pounds.
>>28635200What were they doing back in the day that they could make so many body variants and offer so many engines?
>>28641654Actually building the steel and cars in america.
>>28641597Police car interiors are also fairly gutted. I still have questions about how much that STLA Large AWD system is adding. Some transfer cases are more obese than others, but this is a fucking truck drivetrain.The glass in these cars is also extremely heavy. All the way around. Hundreds of pounds. I drive a Challenger and could swear the windows are 100% glass because the window lazily trails the door when I swing it open. They almost don't follow each other. It even wiggles a bit.
>>28642003>Police car interiors are also fairly gutted.Yeah that's fair. I figured that they'd come out to roughly the same considering that you're gutting a lot of creature comforts but adding scanner, radio, and GPS packages and armored body segments, but I guess there's no way to know how it shakes out for real unless someone has a decommissioned police vehicle to weigh.
>>28641654the cars were much simpler and didn't rely on importing computer chips from Guangzhou or some shit. They also used to sell cars to people with above a 5th grade reading level who were capable of understanding how a car worked.
>>28641654Because there was absolutely no engineering involved in development. Just slap a box on a ladder frame for the cabin, and stretch out some cheap sheet metal to cover the mechanisms and bam you have the new model year
Because most Americans are fucking stupid and think 'big number must be better lemme pay more'.Fuck that I just got an 04 3.9 v6 Mustang for 2k Im gonna look cool as fuck in for cheap and still go vroom
>>28643038>Im gonna look cool as fuck in for cheapSorry anon, you're gonna look poor and white trash in that new edge mustang. Then when you rev the 200k mile v6, everyone is going to hear how poor and cheap you are.
>>28643045You don't like loud cars? Are you a faggot or something?
>>28643091I enjoy loud cars that sound good. I don't enjoy Ford V6's with rusted out toobs from 25 years ago.
>>28643091I like loud cars that quickly become quiet because they're a quarter mile away in a few seconds. Cars with nothing but loudener mods and brap tunes are gay as fuck
>>28629938First off,>Six Pack>I6That's a six pack by way of the left or right half of a twelve pack.Also to sum it up, there is an absolutely atrocious noise that most of these types of cars CAN make (You too, Nissan/Infiniti) that's associated with glue-on bodykits and impotent road rage. That's not to say that most of these aren't being driven by someone who'd be in a Camry if they had children, but the stigma is there.
