Newer "Mopars"

[billzilla]

If you guys took the time to look at Dodge's website, you would see that they are offering a 3.5 V6 SE model, a 5.7 V8 R/T model and the 6.1 V8 SRT.

Right, I mentioned that.

I dunno about 'make as many as they can sell' but I'd be happy to see Challengers at MSRP with no markup. Or, rather, my friend will.

I agree the SRT-4 Neon wasn't a musclecar -- It's a compact sports sedan in the same vein as a Sentra or Altima SE-R, Civic Si, etc.

This is what I consider a TRADITIONAL musclecar: A medium to large coupe or sedan (usually 2-door) with the emphasis on a big or powerful motor and straight line performance with secondary nods to braking and suspension. RWD. Not so traditional elements would be AWD like with the Magnum R/T, or a Turbo V6 as with the Grand National or GNX.

I'd say traditionally these cars are from American companies, but there are definitely others (Euro Ford, Holden in Australia) that have produced traditional musclecars. Remember the Ford Falcon made famous in Mad Max?

Are older Mustangs, Camaros, Mopars and so forth musclecars when they have V6's or low-output V8's? I think it depends on your definition and the car. I'd say a basic Sebring with a V6 isn't a musclecar by the usual definition, but you could certainly make it INTO one. Is a Gremlin X a musclecar? Maybe so. AMC AMX? I'd say so. I'd say the mid to late 70's and 80's Camaros and Firebirds remained musclecars, if mostly in name since their engines got detuned so severely.

Which brings me to the topic of performance... I don't feel that raw performance dictates musclecar status. Why? Well, many of the cars most people refer to as American Muscle weren't really all that fast. Some were, sure, but these days even your average Honda Accord can keep up with - or actually outrun - most V8 cars from the 60's and 70's, while getting 21MPG average, costing under $30K and posting considerably better braking and handling numbers. It's still not a musclecar to me, and the reason is that it lacks all the elements OTHER than performance: Look, feel, size, engine, RWD. I have no use for a FWD with that much power, frankly - the slop/hop when launching or turning while accelerating is just stupid. But is a vintage American car with a V8 and a 14-something 1/4mi. a musclecar because of how fast it is? I don't think so.

[aerodynamic]

I think we all may be missing the point here. Here's what's missing...character. Does the new Challenger have character? The new Mustang? If I take a new Challenger and stick it in a garage, will it be worth more in 30 years than it is now? I'm not sure the character is something we can define...we just know it's there. A sort of personality and charisma that all musclecars had. We all know we all talk to our cars when no one is around. Well, I do anyway. These cars are finicky, and yep, they break sometimes. They always will. Even total restos aren't without their issues. But, your car needs you as much as you need it. You're helping to keep history alive. The tinkering is the bond, man! Any relationship takes maintenance. No one's gonna tinker much with a new Challenger. Yeah, I know, it'll purr like a kitten and won't leak anything for a very long time and will be really fast. That's all well and good.

But I just know I won't ever want to talk to it.

[landon1]

i know what you mean...i LOVE my satellite, as well as working on my car...doin different things to it to get a lil more umff or some cosmetic changes to get more attention....i also love my new mustang, but it's different...I hop in it, it'll start barely turning the key and i'm off...as fast as i want to go, twisting the darn thing sideways goin down the road (it's squirrely as hell - barely weighs 3K), i wax it and polish it and detail under the hood and all that garbage, more than i do to my satty even, but i don't care about it anymore, or even less...i know that if something happened to it, i could get another one since i see 20 different ones every day.

Muscle cars have a rep about them...personally, i'd take a 67 straight 6 camaro, or a slant 6, 3 on the tree cuda.....the high optioned, hi-perf models made even the base models cool...look at the shoebox chevys...a bel air is cool, but a 210 or a 150 is just as cool because of the idealogical belief that your car is just as cool as the fuel injected hydromatic belair convertible in red and white, for example, or that the slant 6 flat hood challenger that nobody seems to care about becuase it's not a hemi with a shaker is the COOLEST car in the world.

the new cars...there's just something that seems fake about them...and again, that challenger is so HUGE

[billzilla]

Well, at this point I think we're getting more into what makes a vintage car attractive versus a newer car - not necessarily what makes a musclecar.

I had a '72 BMW 2002 at the same time I had a 1989 Geo Metro (which was new at the time). The Metro got 50+MPG and was a new car. It had the new car smell. The BMW wasn't really fast and it needed tons of work, but it was just cooler. It had metal and chrome where the Geo had... Plastic and more plastic. I still miss the 2002... The only thing I miss about the Geo is 50MPG.

I think the base notion of what makes a 60's or 70's car worth having and more 'cool' than something new is that back then, the bodies and frames were meant to LAST. Everything was steel and LOTS of it. The few plastic parts were almost inconsequential. If you got hit, you had the dent pulled out or bondoed. Today, the merest tap means you need a replacement plastic panel. When you lean on a Corolla these days, it gets dented. My Satellite could take a flying kick to the door and probably break your leg. Even the chrome trim is pretty thick and durable. Trim doesn't look good? Buy a properly shaped ball hammer and pound the SOB out.

There's computers. Now we have GPS guided computers that can shut your motor off if Big Brother doesn't like you. Everything is regulated, measured, tested, governed and calibrated digitally. By comparison, the 60's and 70's cars were marvels of simplicity and straightforward function. There was FAR less crap in between the combustion chamber, tranny and the accelerator.

New cars have that quiet smooth ride, nice steering feel, tight handling, responsive brakes and loads of extras like ABS, A/C, GPS, nice stereos and all sorts of crap. The older cars are more hard edged, steely and rough around the edges. The old fashioned lights, interiors and even their smells are different. They're louder and people tend to stop you and ask about them more. Naturally, all that contributes to the sense of 'cool' and 'different'.

I'm dimly aware of the fact that I am just blabbering on, and am now going to stop typing...

[landon1]

another thing i just remembered....

now i love oldies lol, as do a lot of people my age, and the reason, supposedly for this, is because there were so MANY baby boomers that the music just kept getting played over and over and kinda forced down everyone's throats, even tho it's "rockin and a rollin" haha

maybe that's another reason why the 60s-70s cars are so beloved by so many...conformity? but at the same time, standing out by not being obsessed with plastic cars

[RS23-71]

I'm sure this same debate happened back when the '71 plymouth b-bodies came out... by ppl that owned '60 and '50s era cars. Only way you know if a car has character or will be worth more in 30 yrs is wait and see. I'm sure a younger generation growing up with a new car will feel the same way I feel about my '71 if I compared it to an older generation car.

For me the reason I keep my car is cause I fell in love with it when I was a teenager... whats not to say todays teenagers will not feel the same about the new cars?



30 yrs from now................ You know back in the good old days....................... when cars were powered by gasoline and it only cost $3.50 a gallon.

[Smellslike1974]

These newer cars wont last 30 years,because why?
theres to many factors to list.
but heres 3

gas
certain drivers
the weather


lol

[RS23-71]

These newer cars wont last 30 years,because why?
theres to many factors to list.
but heres 3

gas
certain drivers
the weather


lol

I'm sure they said that about our yr cars.

[Smellslike1974]

These newer cars wont last 30 years,because why?
theres to many factors to list.
but heres 3

gas
certain drivers
the weather


lol

I'm sure they said that about our yr cars.

they probably did,but we know better

[RS23-71]

Actually one of the most durable cars I ever owned was my Fiero (and yes I have owned quite a few cars and trucks =p). One of the few vehicles that would start in -20 deg F and if the doors were frozen shut I could just slam my foot hard into the middle of the door to break it free and it didn't dent or crack. One of the few cars I actually drove yr round.

I took my GTX out once when we had about 1 in of snow, it was about impossible to keep on the road and at one intersection it took me about 2 green and red lights to get all the way through it. Needless to say the ppl going the other way through the light gave me the nastiest glares I have ever seen as they had to wait.

I still regret selling that Fiero it should be in a collection along with my GTX.

[RS23-71]

i also love my new mustang, but it's different...I hop in it, it'll start barely turning the key and i'm off...as fast as i want to go, twisting the darn thing sideways goin down the road (it's squirrely as hell - barely weighs 3K),

Barley weighs 3k? Did you lighten it? One of my friends has a 2007 mustang and its weighs 3500 lbs.

[Smellslike1974]

Cars are like bands
ZThe old ones were the best,now a days most of them are garbage,lol

(i came up with that myself...cookie?..no..okay)

[billzilla]

I do not think newer cars will last as long - at least, not if they're neglected. You can still find 40 year old cars in fields that can be restored. If you sent a new Chrysler Grand Caravan back to 1971, there's just no way it would withstand exposure to the elements as well. For starters, the metal is much thinner. Second, tons of exterior plastic that warps and cracks over time and seasons. Finally, electronics. The dependence of newer cars on circuit board electronics and computers is critical to their longevity. Can you imagine leaving your typical personal computer sitting out in a field for 40 years and then firing it up after a quick battery change and cleaning?

Look at some of the weak points on our B-Bodies. Plastics deteriorate. The interior panels crumbled, the dash foam split and cracked. Often times the electrical stuff like the radio, fan motor, heater controls fail. Lights and wiring can be a pain. Electrical contacts don't do so well after so much time passes.

Maybe newer electricals and plastics are better quality, but I doubt they'll last much longer. I've already seen plenty of cars built in the 80's and 90's with tons of plastic exterior parts look like hell due to the warping and damage that normal wear causes.

Thinner sheetmetal = more rust. More electronics, wiring and gadgets = more opportunity for electrical failure. More plastics = less structural solidity. And it's not just all about the era, either -- my brother's '72 Datsun 510 is a borderline rustbucket despite it being covered most of its life. They're notorious for that, actually. Because the metal was just too thin (like newer cars).

[landon1]

i also love my new mustang, but it's different...I hop in it, it'll start barely turning the key and i'm off...as fast as i want to go, twisting the darn thing sideways goin down the road (it's squirrely as hell - barely weighs 3K),

Barley weighs 3k? Did you lighten it? One of my friends has a 2007 mustang and its weighs 3500 lbs.

according to registration and other information, 3000 pounds is the norm...the 82-92 camaros were approx. 3200 with some thicker metal, and more of it (i believe this is correct, my friend has an 87 IROC with a 305)

[RS23-71]

Well you can not put down todays cars for more electronics and thinner sheetmetal cause would you want to pay for a car today if it had the same thickness steel as they did back then? The body alone would cost like 10x what it did then.

All steel of the same grade rusts at the same rate the only thing that changes that is the elements that make up the steel. The coatings that is put on it and for as thin as the steel is now if it was the same grade as they used back then your newer cars would be lucky to last 10 yrs.

Its hard to compare cars built back 30 yrs ago when the USA was one of the few major players of resources and not like now where if you tried to build cars to the same spec they would cost around 80k for your most basic car.

Today we have to deal with global challenges and that means making the best car for what you can sell with todays competition they didnt have back in 1971-1974. I mean back then buying one of our cars brand new for $3000-$4000 was expensive but nowadays ppl pay that for a rusted out hulk of the same car and spend 10x that to fix it up. Its still not a daily driver.

Owning an old car like we got is mostly an expensive hobby where if you buy a new car you are more likely to drive it day to day. Just like ppl did back when our cars 1st came out. Alot of ppl that bought our cars when they were brand new I'm sure viewed them as you would for buying a new challenger. Your not buying it to collect it but to have fun and drive the piss out of it. Most of us dont do that to our old cars we have now cause we love them but how many ppl that bought them new thought.... hmm this car is classic and in 36 yrs someone will cherish it?

I look at the new cars the same... man this car is hot looking and will be fun to drive and if something happens to it <shrug> insurance and dodge will have the parts to fix it. Can we say that about the cars we got now? Not really so that makes them something to cherish even more.

I'm just happy to see more of the classic lines of car design coming back and that alone would make it worth the cost.