Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Old Jan 2, 2006 | 12:11 AM
  #16  
Fbodfather's Avatar
ALMIGHTY MEMBER
 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,298
From: Detroit, MI USA
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

well......as was mentioned in this thread earlier.....it IS based off an existing platform.

Yup ...it will weigh a lot.......and people.....get used to it......in order to get a 5-star side impact rating, it's gonna cost you in terms of weight. No one paid any attention to something like that yesteryear.

(well......you COULD use exotic materials....but that adds to cost......and you'll still have a weight problem......)

GREAT JOB, FS!!!
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 02:52 AM
  #17  
Camarocracy's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 992
From: Youngstown, Ohio
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Could you make a comparison to the original Challenger from 1970? If you guys remember, the muscle cars of the late 60's weren't exactly small either, 1970 Chevelle/GTO/GS/Cutlass anyone?

The Challenger might be the same over-all length as the Magnum, but the wheel-base is 4" shorter.

Last edited by Camarocracy; Jan 2, 2006 at 02:55 AM.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 03:28 AM
  #18  
FS3800's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Camarocracy
Could you make a comparison to the original Challenger from 1970? If you guys remember, the muscle cars of the late 60's weren't exactly small either, 1970 Chevelle/GTO/GS/Cutlass anyone?


1970 challenger:
wheelbase: 110"
length: 191.3"

new challenger:
wheelbase: 116"
length: 197.8"

1970 chevelle:
wheelbase: 112"
length: 197.2"




Originally Posted by Camarocracy
The Challenger might be the same over-all length as the Magnum, but the wheel-base is 4" shorter.
a shorter wheelbase does not make a car smaller or lighter..
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 07:35 AM
  #19  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Why is the hood so long on the Challenger? (compared to platform mate Magnum) Are they keeping room for a V12 or something?
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 08:09 AM
  #20  
SNEAKY NEIL's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Fbodfather

Yup ...it will weigh a lot.......and people.....get used to it......in order to get a 5-star side impact rating, it's gonna cost you in terms of weight. No one paid any attention to something like that yesteryear.

(well......you COULD use exotic materials....but that adds to cost......and you'll still have a weight problem......)
I don't like the sound of that..................it sounds like a warning or getting us prepared for what is to come with a certain vehicle.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 09:04 AM
  #21  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by SNEAKY NEIL
I don't like the sound of that..................it sounds like a warning or getting us prepared for what is to come with a certain vehicle.

I know what you mean, I thought the same thing.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 12:06 PM
  #22  
FS3800's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Z28x
Why is the hood so long on the Challenger? (compared to platform mate Magnum) Are they keeping room for a V12 or something?
i'd say to keep those classic muscle car proportions.. long hood, short deck..
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 12:11 PM
  #23  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by FS3800
i'd say to keep those classic muscle car proportions.. long hood, short deck..
Problem is, the deck isn't exactly "short" either....
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 12:49 PM
  #24  
FS3800's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Z284ever
What looks cool is the Camaro with a 116" wheelbase and 20/21" wheels.
hmmm.. agreed..

Old Jan 2, 2006 | 01:08 PM
  #25  
yellow_99_gt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

I don't give a damn how heavy or how big the new Challenger, Camaro or GT500 are. All that matters to me is they're fast, and if they can outrun the models they replace that's ****ing awesome.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 04:17 PM
  #26  
guionM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by yellow_99_gt
I don't give a damn how heavy or how big the new Challenger, Camaro or GT500 are. All that matters to me is they're fast, and if they can outrun the models they replace that's ****ing awesome.
Now ya talkin!
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 04:58 PM
  #27  
91Z28350's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,011
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by FS3800
hmmm.. agreed..


Hmm, that looks just, well .....weird.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 08:46 PM
  #28  
Z284ever's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,176
From: Chicagoland IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by yellow_99_gt
I don't give a damn how heavy or how big the new Challenger, Camaro or GT500 are. All that matters to me is they're fast, and if they can outrun the models they replace that's ****ing awesome.
I hope that you're kidding or just being sarcastic. Because if you're not, I'd have to call this the most ridiculous post I've read in a long time.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 09:02 PM
  #29  
yellow_99_gt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Z284ever
I hope that you're kidding or just being sarcastic. Because if you're not, I'd have to call this the most ridiculous post I've read in a long time.
No I'm serious. As long as it's faster than the old model I could care less about weight. It's not like I have to be able to pick the damn thing up.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 09:08 PM
  #30  
johnsocal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Fbodfather
well......as was mentioned in this thread earlier.....it IS based off an existing platform.

Yup ...it will weigh a lot.......and people.....get used to it......in order to get a 5-star side impact rating, it's gonna cost you in terms of weight. No one paid any attention to something like that yesteryear.

(well......you COULD use exotic materials....but that adds to cost......and you'll still have a weight problem......)

GREAT JOB, FS!!!
All the regulations and standards you have to meet, makes the job of bringing an attactive and 'affordable' car to the marketplace that more difficult.

For those who intend to sell their vehicles in Europe, the new EU pedestrian standards surely didn't make it any easier. On the otherhand the new EU pedestrian safety standard might be a key factor in why the oldschool blunt-nose-look (in which I like alot) is being brought back

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 PM.