08 Challenger pics (56k.....just wait till u see it in person..)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
It's clear the Challenger is an old fashioned American coupe from back in the days when coupes were the biggest selling market in the US.
They were roomy enough to take the friends out on Friday nights while being fast enough to hold their own with all but the most serious street machines. They could be used as family cars with trunks big enough to take vacations with the wife and kids with luggage included. It has enough moxie to show up at Drag Strips on public "Run What You Brung Nights" and even win a few, yet drive the family to church on Sunday morning.
There's way too many people here in the age of mandatory child seats who grew up on FWD sedans or SUVs as family cars and the only V8 RWD coupes they have ever known is the Camaro and Mustang, which although great cars in their own right, have rear seats that are torturous to anyone back there for extended times that are over 4 years old or have legs.
To today's group, Chevelles, LeMans, Torinos, and Chargers are now nothing more than Chevelles SS, GTOs, Torino GTs, and Cherger Hemis with no real understanding that these cars were not even imagined in the same class as Camaros, Mustangs, Javelins, Barracudas and the original Challengers. Unfortunately, today, anything that has a V8 and RWD in the minds of people today means it has to automatically be a pony car if it has 2 doors, or 4 doors if it's any larger. I find that notion silly.
But still, the size of the Challenger, despite being both in a different class & very close in size to a 4th gen Camaro or current Mustang (let alone no bigger than a Monte Carlo) is considered "huge".
You can not say that a vehicle "IS" a significantly larger vehicle when the measurements don't support it. The measurements posted simply reinforce what I posted:
Challenger's 4 inches longer than the Camaro (the width of 4 fingers).
Challenger's 1.5 inches wider than a Camaro (just over the width of your thumb).
Challenger's 2.5 inches taller than a Mustang (put your 2 thumbs together) or 2" taller than a GTO.
The wheelbase, though, is 15" longer, which lead me to point out that created an optical illusion when combined with the height. I didn't include Mustang's height in the equasion which I did this time (the new Camaro is also significantly taller than the 4th gen, so Mustang is a good yardstick).
With the Mustang added to the equasion, I change my observation to the Challenger's illusion is due to it's massive wheelbase and high beltline.
In real life, it looks huge.
Keep repeating that sentence to yourself while looking at it next to... say... a Monte Carlo or G8.
Careful.... The car is regularly mistaken as a new Camaro. 
The mistaken idenity was mentioned in Automotive Magazine regarding the one they drove around, it was also mentioned in another car mag's around town test drive, and at least one person on this site mistook one as a lightly cammo'ed Camaro about 7 or 8 months ago.
The poster refered to it as a boat based on size, not weight.
Thank you for that well thought out, and intellengent input.
Your post has now convinced to ignore everything I've ever been told, and looked up regarding the correlation regarding high horsepower, NVH, and mandatory safety requirements and expected durabilty levels of todays automobiles and the weight all this adds.
A post that deep is normally what I'd expect from one of these guys:
I shall now go forth and change the laws of physics, the strength-weight properties of metallic substances, & corperate cost-benefits analysis, .......
....NOT!
Yeah.... I feel a little antsy today.
They were roomy enough to take the friends out on Friday nights while being fast enough to hold their own with all but the most serious street machines. They could be used as family cars with trunks big enough to take vacations with the wife and kids with luggage included. It has enough moxie to show up at Drag Strips on public "Run What You Brung Nights" and even win a few, yet drive the family to church on Sunday morning.
There's way too many people here in the age of mandatory child seats who grew up on FWD sedans or SUVs as family cars and the only V8 RWD coupes they have ever known is the Camaro and Mustang, which although great cars in their own right, have rear seats that are torturous to anyone back there for extended times that are over 4 years old or have legs.
To today's group, Chevelles, LeMans, Torinos, and Chargers are now nothing more than Chevelles SS, GTOs, Torino GTs, and Cherger Hemis with no real understanding that these cars were not even imagined in the same class as Camaros, Mustangs, Javelins, Barracudas and the original Challengers. Unfortunately, today, anything that has a V8 and RWD in the minds of people today means it has to automatically be a pony car if it has 2 doors, or 4 doors if it's any larger. I find that notion silly.
But still, the size of the Challenger, despite being both in a different class & very close in size to a 4th gen Camaro or current Mustang (let alone no bigger than a Monte Carlo) is considered "huge".
Oh, come on, what optical illusion? That it's shaped like a brick, and hence the hood "appears" to start a foot higher than 4th gen? That's not optical illusion. That's a fact.
Here are the dimensions of both cars:
L: Camaro 193.5 in, Challenger 197.7 in
W: Camaro 74.1 in, Challenger 75.7 in
H: Camaro 51.2 in, Challenger 57 in
WB: Camaro 101.1 in, Challenger 116
The illusion here is that, on paper, they don't look that much different other than the weight and the wheelbase. In reality, though, the Challenger IS a significantly larger vehicle.
Here are the dimensions of both cars:
L: Camaro 193.5 in, Challenger 197.7 in
W: Camaro 74.1 in, Challenger 75.7 in
H: Camaro 51.2 in, Challenger 57 in
WB: Camaro 101.1 in, Challenger 116
The illusion here is that, on paper, they don't look that much different other than the weight and the wheelbase. In reality, though, the Challenger IS a significantly larger vehicle.
Challenger's 4 inches longer than the Camaro (the width of 4 fingers).
Challenger's 1.5 inches wider than a Camaro (just over the width of your thumb).
Challenger's 2.5 inches taller than a Mustang (put your 2 thumbs together) or 2" taller than a GTO.
The wheelbase, though, is 15" longer, which lead me to point out that created an optical illusion when combined with the height. I didn't include Mustang's height in the equasion which I did this time (the new Camaro is also significantly taller than the 4th gen, so Mustang is a good yardstick).
With the Mustang added to the equasion, I change my observation to the Challenger's illusion is due to it's massive wheelbase and high beltline.
Keep repeating that sentence to yourself while looking at it next to... say... a Monte Carlo or G8.
The mistaken idenity was mentioned in Automotive Magazine regarding the one they drove around, it was also mentioned in another car mag's around town test drive, and at least one person on this site mistook one as a lightly cammo'ed Camaro about 7 or 8 months ago.
Thank you for that well thought out, and intellengent input.
Your post has now convinced to ignore everything I've ever been told, and looked up regarding the correlation regarding high horsepower, NVH, and mandatory safety requirements and expected durabilty levels of todays automobiles and the weight all this adds.
A post that deep is normally what I'd expect from one of these guys:
I shall now go forth and change the laws of physics, the strength-weight properties of metallic substances, & corperate cost-benefits analysis, .......
....NOT!
Yeah.... I feel a little antsy today.
Last edited by guionM; Jul 15, 2008 at 02:55 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 602
From: Alpharetta, GA
The interior on that car looks 10X better than the charger/300/magnum. I guess that focus group cerebus did to use better materials really paid off. That looks like a quality built/designed interior.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 511
From: Mill Creek, WA
It's clear the Challenger is an old fashioned American coupe from back in the days when coupes were the biggest selling market in the US.
They were roomy enough to take the friends out on Friday nights while being fast enough to hold their own with all but the most serious street machines. They could be used as family cars with trunks big enough to take vacations with the wife and kids with luggage included. It has enough moxie to show up at Drag Strips on public "Run What You Brung Nights" and even win a few, yet drive the family to church on Sunday morning.
There's way too many people here in the age of mandatory child seats who grew up on FWD sedans or SUVs as family cars and the only V8 RWD coupes they have ever known is the Camaro and Mustang, which although great cars in their own right, have rear seats that are torturous to anyone back there for extended times that are over 4 years old or have legs.
To today's group, Chevelles, LeMans, Torinos, and Chargers are now nothing more than Chevelles SS, GTOs, Torino GTs, and Cherger Hemis with no real understanding that these cars were not even imagined in the same class as Camaros, Mustangs, Javelins, Barracudas and the original Challengers. Unfortunately, today, anything that has a V8 and RWD in the minds of people today means it has to automatically be a pony car if it has 2 doors, or 4 doors if it's any larger. I find that notion silly.
But still, the size of the Challenger, despite being both in a different class & very close in size to a 4th gen Camaro or current Mustang (let alone no bigger than a Monte Carlo) is considered "huge".
You can not say that a vehicle "IS" a significantly larger vehicle when the measurements don't support it. The measurements posted simply reinforce what I posted:
Challenger's 4 inches longer than the Camaro (the width of 4 fingers).
Challenger's 1.5 inches wider than a Camaro (just over the width of your thumb).
Challenger's 2.5 inches taller than a Mustang (put your 2 thumbs together) or 2" taller than a GTO.
The wheelbase, though, is 15" longer, which lead me to point out that created an optical illusion when combined with the height. I didn't include Mustang's height in the equasion which I did this time (the new Camaro is also significantly taller than the 4th gen, so Mustang is a good yardstick).
With the Mustang added to the equasion, I change my observation to the Challenger's illusion is due to it's massive wheelbase and high beltline.
In real life, it looks huge.
Keep repeating that sentence to yourself while looking at it next to... say... a Monte Carlo or G8.
Careful.... The car is regularly mistaken as a new Camaro.
The mistaken idenity was mentioned in Automotive Magazine regarding the one they drove around, it was also mentioned in another car mag's around town test drive, and at least one person on this site mistook one as a lightly cammo'ed Camaro about 7 or 8 months ago.
The poster refered to it as a boat based on size, not weight.
Thank you for that well thought out, and intellengent input.
Your post has now convinced to ignore everything I've ever been told, and looked up regarding the correlation regarding high horsepower, NVH, and mandatory safety requirements and expected durabilty levels of todays automobiles and the weight all this adds.
A post that deep is normally what I'd expect from one of these guys:
I shall now go forth and change the laws of physics, the strength-weight properties of metallic substances, & corperate cost-benefits analysis, .......
....NOT!
Yeah.... I feel a little antsy today.
They were roomy enough to take the friends out on Friday nights while being fast enough to hold their own with all but the most serious street machines. They could be used as family cars with trunks big enough to take vacations with the wife and kids with luggage included. It has enough moxie to show up at Drag Strips on public "Run What You Brung Nights" and even win a few, yet drive the family to church on Sunday morning.
There's way too many people here in the age of mandatory child seats who grew up on FWD sedans or SUVs as family cars and the only V8 RWD coupes they have ever known is the Camaro and Mustang, which although great cars in their own right, have rear seats that are torturous to anyone back there for extended times that are over 4 years old or have legs.
To today's group, Chevelles, LeMans, Torinos, and Chargers are now nothing more than Chevelles SS, GTOs, Torino GTs, and Cherger Hemis with no real understanding that these cars were not even imagined in the same class as Camaros, Mustangs, Javelins, Barracudas and the original Challengers. Unfortunately, today, anything that has a V8 and RWD in the minds of people today means it has to automatically be a pony car if it has 2 doors, or 4 doors if it's any larger. I find that notion silly.
But still, the size of the Challenger, despite being both in a different class & very close in size to a 4th gen Camaro or current Mustang (let alone no bigger than a Monte Carlo) is considered "huge".
You can not say that a vehicle "IS" a significantly larger vehicle when the measurements don't support it. The measurements posted simply reinforce what I posted:
Challenger's 4 inches longer than the Camaro (the width of 4 fingers).
Challenger's 1.5 inches wider than a Camaro (just over the width of your thumb).
Challenger's 2.5 inches taller than a Mustang (put your 2 thumbs together) or 2" taller than a GTO.
The wheelbase, though, is 15" longer, which lead me to point out that created an optical illusion when combined with the height. I didn't include Mustang's height in the equasion which I did this time (the new Camaro is also significantly taller than the 4th gen, so Mustang is a good yardstick).
With the Mustang added to the equasion, I change my observation to the Challenger's illusion is due to it's massive wheelbase and high beltline.
In real life, it looks huge.
Keep repeating that sentence to yourself while looking at it next to... say... a Monte Carlo or G8.
Careful.... The car is regularly mistaken as a new Camaro.
The mistaken idenity was mentioned in Automotive Magazine regarding the one they drove around, it was also mentioned in another car mag's around town test drive, and at least one person on this site mistook one as a lightly cammo'ed Camaro about 7 or 8 months ago.
The poster refered to it as a boat based on size, not weight.
Thank you for that well thought out, and intellengent input.
Your post has now convinced to ignore everything I've ever been told, and looked up regarding the correlation regarding high horsepower, NVH, and mandatory safety requirements and expected durabilty levels of todays automobiles and the weight all this adds.
A post that deep is normally what I'd expect from one of these guys:
I shall now go forth and change the laws of physics, the strength-weight properties of metallic substances, & corperate cost-benefits analysis, .......
....NOT!
Yeah.... I feel a little antsy today.
Again and I actually said this in a reply to Jason a few posts back. Length, width, height are all similar on paper. Your correct in this respect. As far as dimensions go it is only slightly larger than a 4th gen. A better reflection of the cars actual size though is it's volume. If there was a relatively easy way to calculate this (without using a pool of water) the difference would be "huge". Let's say dimensionally the Challenger is 5% larger than a 4th gen. If we could accurately measure the volume of both cars that is the physical space occupied by both cars the difference would be "huge". My purely opinionated guess would be ~20%.
I'll say it again because I like saying it now. The new Challenger IS HUGE.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 511
From: Mill Creek, WA
Have to agree. It's a big step up compared to others in the Dodge lineup.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,597
From: Mack and Bewick
I stand corrected. In real life it IS huge. Strike the "looks" out of that sentence.
Again and I actually said this in a reply to Jason a few posts back. Length, width, height are all similar on paper. Your correct in this respect. As far as dimensions go it is only slightly larger than a 4th gen. A better reflection of the cars actual size though is it's volume. If there was a relatively easy way to calculate this (without using a pool of water) the difference would be "huge". Let's say dimensionally the Challenger is 5% larger than a 4th gen. If we could accurately measure the volume of both cars that is the physical space occupied by both cars the difference would be "huge". My purely opinionated guess would be ~20%.
I'll say it again because I like saying it now. The new Challenger IS HUGE.
Again and I actually said this in a reply to Jason a few posts back. Length, width, height are all similar on paper. Your correct in this respect. As far as dimensions go it is only slightly larger than a 4th gen. A better reflection of the cars actual size though is it's volume. If there was a relatively easy way to calculate this (without using a pool of water) the difference would be "huge". Let's say dimensionally the Challenger is 5% larger than a 4th gen. If we could accurately measure the volume of both cars that is the physical space occupied by both cars the difference would be "huge". My purely opinionated guess would be ~20%.
I'll say it again because I like saying it now. The new Challenger IS HUGE.
I mean the actual horizantal part of a 4th gen roof is what, about 3' wide and less than that wide? Where as with a Challenger, it's probably wider and way longer, so even if they are the same height, at that height, there is substantially more Challenger than Camaro.
Which isn't neccesarily a problem because these are cars for different purposes, whether or not there are enough people that treat them as such.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,881
Geeze, I really dont get this size perception thing. Especailly when most people here own or owned a suv very recently...........
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 511
From: Mill Creek, WA
If we call the Challenger a Sport Utility Coupe then it's hugeness seems more appropriate.
Hey there you have it. The new Challenger is a Sport Utility Coupe. SUC for short.
LOL I crack myself up. 
Did I just coin a new term?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 602
From: Alpharetta, GA
But SUV's are supposed to be relatively large hence the "Utility" aspect of their description.
If we call the Challenger a Sport Utility Coupe then it's hugeness seems more appropriate.
Hey there you have it. The new Challenger is a Sport Utility Coupe. SUC for short. LOL I crack myself up.
Did I just coin a new term?
If we call the Challenger a Sport Utility Coupe then it's hugeness seems more appropriate.
Hey there you have it. The new Challenger is a Sport Utility Coupe. SUC for short.
LOL I crack myself up. Did I just coin a new term?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_utility_coupe