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

Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 09:18 PM
  #31  
AnthonyHSV's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 848
From: Melb, Aust
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by johnsocal
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

Sorry but wouldnt a rounded front end be better for pedestrian hits? I mean less surface area of the car is being absorbed into the pedestrian? Also I'm guessing a more rounded body will crumple to absorb damage much easier than a boxy shape.
Old Jan 2, 2006 | 10:56 PM
  #32  
johnsocal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by AnthonyHSV
Sorry but wouldnt a rounded front end be better for pedestrian hits? I mean less surface area of the car is being absorbed into the pedestrian? Also I'm guessing a more rounded body will crumple to absorb damage much easier than a boxy shape.
This explains it best.

full article can be found @ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...40/ai_n6062880

Most auto makers won't have to add exterior airbags or implement drastic changes to meet the 2005 requirements, but much stricter legislation scheduled for 2010 could force major changes in the way vehicle front ends are designed and engineered. And in the auto industry, where new-product lead times of three and four years are common, 2010 isn't far off.

Auto makers will not be able to sell new vehicles in the European Union after Oct. 1, 2005, unless they conduct strict tests to prove their vehicles meet the new pedestrian impact rules.
All new passenger cars and light vans will have to pass two tests to meet requirements for protecting pedestrians from head and leg injuries in frontal impacts. The tests will cover impacts involving the A-pillar, bumper, the hood's leading edge and outer structure and the windshield.

In the second phase beginning in 2010, four tests of increased severity will be required. Two will cover head injuries and two leg injuries. Standards for both adults and children will have to be met. Bumpers made of flexible materials and hoods that cave in to cushion the impact will be among the changes required to meet both phases.

The directive also calls for extra space between the exterior surface and the underhood structure from the front bumper to the windshield. The 8-in. (20-cm) gap is expected to reduce the severity of pedestrian injuries by better dispersing the impact energy of a person striking an automobile's front-end, hood or windshield area.

"It will cause changes in styling and it's going to cause the OEMs to work harder to meet the requirements, but I don't think it's really going to require radical change in the way people design cars," says Jim Hadden, chief operating officer-Arup Vehicle Design Group, which has engineering centers in the U.K., Tokyo and Detroit.

"Maybe the hood will be a little higher, the bumper will be a little lower, cars will be a little more rounded, but it's not really going to make everybody completely rethink the way they do things."

Arup recently developed new pedestrian-impact analysis software designed to mesh with the digital models of new vehicle designs and help engineers meet the new standards.
However, Hadden says if the second phase of the legislation, which is not yet finalized, is implemented, "then cars will change dramatically both in the way they look and the way they are designed.

"You're going to have to have six to 12 ins. (15 cm to 30 cm) of energy-absorbing foam or something that behaves like a deployable hood all over the front of the car. Unless you can magically shrink the engine, you're going to have much larger front ends, which will have a big effect on size and mass and fuel economy," adds Hadden.

Even headlights will have to be designed differently, Arup says.

The first casualties of the pedestrian-safety push are so-called "bull bars" on SUVs and protruding hood ornaments of luxury brands such as Jaguar, Rolls Royce and Mercedes-Benz.
Bull bars, originally designed to protect SUV grilles and radiators from branches while crashing through the brush, now are almost purely ornamental and present a real threat to pedestrians. Most auto makers already have abandoned them in Europe, although some manufacturers reportedly offer soft plastic versions that are pedestrian friendly.

Jaguar's famous lunging cat, the "leaper," has all but disappeared in Europe because it can act like a spear in pedestrian collisions. The once-iconic 3-pointed star is showing up on fewer new Mercedes-Benz models, too, even though it has been mounted on a pivoting, spring-loaded base for years.

More significantly, company executives told Ward's earlier this year the 2005 legislation killed GM's plan to offer a version of its '06 Pontiac Solstice in Europe.

Light trucks with tall, upright grilles and low-slung sports cars are expected to be among the vehicles most affected by the new safety standards.

"Sadly, we were not able to get (Solstice) in on time under the 2005 pedestrian protection legislation in Europe, which is just going to radically change the look of automobiles in Europe, post-2005. The next generation of European cars is going to look different," says Bob Lutz, GM vice chairman-product development.

Lutz expects European vehicle front ends to feature horizontal hoods and flat fascias, similar to the flat, upright look of the Chrysler Group's new Dodge Magnum and Chrysler 300.
"If you could imagine the (Chevy) Nomad, the (Saturn) Curve or the Solstice with the front-end sheetmetal (that) much higher, it would spoil the design concept considerably," Lutz told reporters at last January's Detroit auto show.


But instead of overhauling front-end designs, many auto makers are working with suppliers TRW Automotive, Autoliv, Siemens VDO Automotive AG and others to develop alternatives, such as so-called "active hoods," that use sensors to detect an impending collision with a pedestrian and then activate a spring or small airbag-like device to instantaneously raise the hood several inches to create the required crush space.

These safety devices are less expensive than full-blown airbags, but still are relatively complex and expensive.

"Everyone is working on it," Adam Opel AG chief Carl-Peter Forester said last winter. "And it will cost a lot of money."

Alain Charlois, director-Product Planning for Occupant Safety Systems, TRW Automotive, says the supplier is working on numerous types of active hoods, including a hood lifter - that can be raised mechanically via a spring or with pyrotechnics - that can increase the distance between the hood and engine block, as well as the possibility of inflating hood and windshield airbags. Some systems are easily "reversible" Charlois says, while others would require more serious replacement costs.

Last edited by johnsocal; Jan 2, 2006 at 11:59 PM.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 01:10 AM
  #33  
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
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.
You don't have to pick it up, but I presume you'd want to drive it. Simply adding more horsepower to an overweight car, won't make every aspect of vehicle dymamics 'all better'. You pay a price - in everything. Handling, braking, acceleration, mpg, fun to drive. It's simple physics.

I'd rather drive a 400 hp 3,400 lbs car, than an 800 hp 6,800 lbs car.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 01:27 AM
  #34  
AdioSS's Avatar
West South Central Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Talking Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

hey FS, how about comparing some of those Mopars to this car?
http://www.swaqvalley.com/Blueprints..._Impala_SS.jpg

Last edited by AdioSS; Jan 3, 2006 at 06:16 PM.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 09:43 AM
  #35  
FS3800's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,028
From: Chicago, IL
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

that my friend is a huge car.. lol .. 214.1".. a full foot and two inches longer than the charger..

i'll see if i can do it when i get home from work
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 10:29 AM
  #36  
SNEAKY NEIL's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,072
From: Lilburn, GA, USA
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

I think I am beginning to become like Z284ever with the weight thing. I don't want to drive a total pig, the overall experience is what I want. I don't really drag race my car much any more so a great "feeling" car with great dynamics is what I am after. I don't think the Charger would posses that.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 11:18 AM
  #37  
johnsocal's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,911
From: Southern California (SoCal)
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Hey AdioSS, could you reduce the size of that 'Impala' image or just link it because that pic is Streeeeeeeeeeeeeetching out peoples posts
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 11:37 AM
  #38  
Capn Pete's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,308
From: Oshawa - Home of the 5th-gen
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by johnsocal
This explains it best.

full article can be found @ http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...40/ai_n6062880
Very interesting article ..... I never realized there was such a push to make cars "people friendly" . I always thought the goal was to make cars safer in "car-to-car" collisions?!

Why don't people just learn to LOOK before they cross the road?!

Seems history is going to repeat itself ... cars are gonna be huge again . So much for making things smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient ... now let's make them big and bulky and HARDER on fuel in the midst of the already high gas prices we're suffering!! Yay!
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 11:39 AM
  #39  
AJ1978TA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 113
From: CT
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

With that size, they should have called THIS car the charger and alter the front accordingly.......
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 01:27 PM
  #40  
96_Camaro_B4C's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,650
From: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by AJ1978TA
With that size, they should have called THIS car the charger and alter the front accordingly.......
Yep. That is what I said in the "More Challenger Pics" thread...
Originally Posted by 96_Camaro_B4C
Seems to me this thing should have been called Charger all along. The Charger was a big-*** car for a coupe, with the Challenger being more of a pony car.

This thing is not really a Mustang competitor in terms of size/weight. The LX cars should have been called Chrysler 300, Dodge Magnum (wagon AND sedan), with this pig of a coupe being named Charger.

57" tall!! Good Lord...
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 04:48 PM
  #41  
91Z28350's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,011
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Guys, you do realize that the 1970 Challenger was 191.3 inches long, and that by 73 they were 199 inches long. Also, with a hemi and a 4 speed the challenger was 3800 lbs, in 1970. This "pig" of a coupe is the modern day equivalent of the Mopar and Chevrolet "b" bodies.The challenger may have been called a pony car, but if it was a "pony", it had a healthy dose of clydesdale in it.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 06:39 PM
  #42  
AdioSS's Avatar
West South Central Moderator
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,371
From: Kilgore TX 75662
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by johnsocal
Hey AdioSS, could you reduce the size of that 'Impala' image or just link it because that pic is Streeeeeeeeeeeeeetching out peoples posts
no problem. it's linked now

Challenger
Length: 197.8
Width: 78.6
Height: 57.0
Wheelbase: 115.9
Weight: 4100#
Overhang: 81.9

96 impala SS
Length: 214.1
Width: 77.0
Height: 55.7
Wheelbase: 115.9
Weight: 4230#

How about this one?
2004 Mercury Marauder
Length: 212.0
Width: 78.2
Height: 60.2
Wheelbase: 114.7
Weight: 4200#

Yep, the new Challenger "Muscle Car" is actually a full size coupe. The only reason it'll be called a "Muscle Car" is because it'll require some serious muscle under the hood to keep up with lighter sports cars.
Old Jan 3, 2006 | 06:59 PM
  #43  
midnight_run_z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 32
From: Flowery Branch, Ga
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Put the bullitt rims on the challenger.

Last edited by midnight_run_z28; Jan 3, 2006 at 08:43 PM.
Old Jan 4, 2006 | 04:36 PM
  #44  
yellow_99_gt's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 393
From: Houston Tx
Re: Challenger Concept Size Comparison

Originally Posted by Z284ever
You don't have to pick it up, but I presume you'd want to drive it. Simply adding more horsepower to an overweight car, won't make every aspect of vehicle dymamics 'all better'. You pay a price - in everything. Handling, braking, acceleration, mpg, fun to drive. It's simple physics.

I'd rather drive a 400 hp 3,400 lbs car, than an 800 hp 6,800 lbs car.
That's the thing they're not adding horsepower to anything. It's an all new platform that's designed to perform with the extra weight and power. It's going to flat out waste the old Challenger in every single aspect of performance, just like the new Camaro will the 02 Camaro and the GT500 will the 03 Cobra. If you think any differently you need to lay off the rock.
Old Jan 4, 2006 | 11:53 PM
  #45  
BigDarknFast's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,139
From: Commerce, mi, USA
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.
Agreed. I wish folks would stop wringing their hands about curb weights. Performance can still be had in spades - if you've got the power.

Thanks FS! A very enlightening idea, to compare the new Challenger with all these classic and modern cars. I was amazed to see how big it is compared to my first car (70 Chevelle). Like FBodFather noted - the size is an aid to good side crash ratings. I read in Motor Trend's review that the new Challenger concept is wider and less 'tucked-in' on the sides than the original - this helps too in side crash. Yet it still has some sporty greenhouse tumble-home.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 AM.