# Real Mopar Muscle - New Dodge Charger



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Tomorrow is the official unveiling of the new Dodge Charger at Daytona International Speedway. Here's a picture, but I'm not sure how official this is. We'll know for sure tomorrow. 

http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html

So much for the 'coke bottle" shape.


----------



## dlw (Aug 17, 1999)

Is it me, or does that look like a mid 60's Barracuda? They should've aimed for the 68-69 Chargers. Those were the ones most people liked.


----------



## 22tall (Jul 28, 2002)

The front looks like a combo of Dodge truck grill and Chevy truck headlights.


----------



## Dadvball (Feb 2, 2001)

When you hear "Dodge Charger", you think muscle car. I'm sorry, but in my book muscle cars don't have 4 doors!


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Too bad they didn't take a hint from the new Ford Mustang and add a little more retro look this thing. Would have been a big seller for sure if they made it look somewhat like a 68-70's coke bottle style beauty.  rr


----------



## lenny (Feb 29, 2000)

WOW... They missed the mark on THAT one... That thing is ugly. Looks like a cross between a Dodge Magnum and a Chevy Malibu. And how more plain vanilla can that interior get???


----------



## Dragula (Jun 27, 2003)

I think im gonna be sick.
Bummed out..Dragula


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Yep, this makes it official. The Daimler-Benz takeover of Chrysler is now complete. Any semblance of American muscle car design within the Mopar family of products is gone. Poof.


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

OK, I'll go out on a limb and say it's growing on me already. There were pics circulating recently of a lime green one with a flat black hood and maybe hockey stick graphics, and that one just looked like a poseurmobile... the 60's muscle car paint cues just did nothing for the modern shape. But now in a proper metallic red, this thing ain't so bad... okay, okay, I'd have preferred a retro 2-door just like you guys, but the Magnum is okay... the 300 is okay... if "this thing got a Hemi", it's okay in my book...

--rick


----------



## JordanZ870 (Nov 25, 2004)

I read the fine print too. Looks like there will be a 2 dr coupe offered also.


----------



## Mike(^RacerX^) (Mar 15, 2003)

Wow,what a bummer.Other then the fact that it has four tires,it really has nothing to do with the original Charger other then the name.As much of a disappointment as the new GTO.

I don't really know how well the new FOrd Mustang is seling,but I will say it is the first time in a very long time that I got excited about a new car.I've only seen them on the lot on the FOrd dealer down the street,but from what I can see,there is nothing wrong with that car.And that's coming from a guy who has driven Camaros for the last 13 or so years.
Ford had the right idea to give the old name a kick in the rear.Really cool retro styling,and rather then put a high price tag on it like the one on their new T Bird,they made it so that the average car buyer could afford one.
I would take a guess that it will be a big hit,and just might make Dodge rethink and restyle the Charger sometime down the road to something a little more retro.

And while we're on Dodge,the whole "hemi" thing that they now have going on kind of irks me.As we all know,a hemi engine is called a "hemi" due to the fact that it has hemispherical combustion chambers.The new Dodge hemi has a flat spot in the combustion chamber,so tho it is close to being a "hemi",it really isn't.Close,but no cigar.

Mike


----------



## GOOSE CHICKEN (Apr 9, 2000)

Dadvball said:


> When you hear "Dodge Charger", you think muscle car. I'm sorry, but in my book muscle cars don't have 4 doors!


Wanna go for a ride in my MUSCLE CAR???










I know one HTBB member who enjoyed a quick ride in my MUSCLE car.
400 H.P. 6 speed manual trans and 4 doors. So for I've seen the high side of 130's mph and it was still pullin in fourth gear. I always said if GM made a Corvette with 4 doors I'd buy it.


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

Dadvball said:


> When you hear "Dodge Charger", you think muscle car. I'm sorry, but in my book muscle cars don't have 4 doors!


AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!
It's a Magnum without the station wagon part anyway


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

GOOSE CHICKEN said:


> Wanna go for a ride in my MUSCLE CAR???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should be ashamed of calling anything with four doors a Muscle car. 
Nothing that is four doors is a Muscle car, I don't care what Dodge, Chysler, or Cadillac commerical you saw that in.. It is an impressive 4 door Sedan.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Goose,,, man that is one impressive cruiser. 400 ponies in luxurious style with muscle enough for the Autobaun high speed lane. I don't care what category that Caddy it falls into, it's one heck of a nice ride. My only complaint with Cadillac is that they've forever re-cast Led Zeppelin with the AARP crowd. But I guess that's about right when you think about it....


----------



## noddaz (Aug 6, 1999)

There is nothing even Chargeresque (?) about that car....
At least it is not a 2.4 4 cylinder...
Scott


----------



## vaBcHRog (Feb 19, 2003)

Gag!!!! The 4 door Prototype that they did earlier looks like one awesome Muscle car compared to this over grown big brother of a Neon Uggggg! Hey RC2 do not make this car.

Roger Corrie


----------



## Marty (Oct 20, 1999)

*In NASCAR trim*

Here it is NASCAR trim:










Marty


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

That Charger looks like a cross between a Stratus and the low end Benz. No surprise there, I guess. But with all the truly innovative designs from Daimler-Chrysler the past few years, this is a disappointment.


----------



## WesJY (Mar 4, 2004)

I am gonna cry.. 

Wes


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Okay, they added a slightly modified grill opening and new set of front end decals to last years body. Typical. rr


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

GOOSE CHICKEN said:


> Wanna go for a ride in my MUSCLE CAR???
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be me. WOOt! LOVE that car... nice to see you letting us have a look at your baby...



Mad Matt said:


> You should be ashamed of calling anything with four doors a Muscle car.
> Nothing that is four doors is a Muscle car, I don't care what Dodge, Chysler, or Cadillac commerical you saw that in.. It is an impressive 4 door Sedan.


you can call it Fred for all I care... it has a big bada$$ V-8 and three pedals and it's rear wheel drive so it's okay in my book...  

and the cocoon of luxury that it wraps you in is just a bonus... 

--rick


----------



## ParkRNDL (Mar 20, 2002)

oh and on the other topic... I guess it's true that even if the new Charger is a good car, the name isn't really fitting. I was way disappointed when Chevy named that big piece of front-wheel-drive [email protected] the Impala, so I guess I see the point of the guys who are irate about the name. But i think the car should be given a chance anyway, it ain't no front-drive poser like the Impala is...

--rick


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Nice Caddy Goose! 

Looked at the video of the intro at Detroit, don't think Kasey is going to win too many races this year. :freak: rr


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

Holy cow!!! The lug nuts on that Dodge Charger race car look EXACTLY like the ones on the Dodge Chargers in the local showrooms! If one of those Dodge Charger race cars wins on Sunday I'm just going to have to buy me one so I can be driving around with those same lug nuts. The friends and neighbors will be VERY impressed. 

Go Dodge ... Go Dodge... Go Dodge ... Mopar Rules!

sigh...........................


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

So....is this the car the Duke boys will be tearing around Hazzard in in the upcoming movie? I just can't see it with a rebel flag on top.  

However, I don't hate it. And it doesn't make a bad looking Nextel Cup car either. I hope they can do some winning with it, though I'd sooner root for the Pettys than the Evernham. (They should've got the promo shot just based on their history.) Sorry, AFXtoo, I don't get the sarcasm about the lug nuts. You don't like that manufacturers promote cars through racing? 

Sorry guys, did you actually think, even for a minute, that it was gonna bear some kind of resemblance to a 69? 

Anyhoo, put my opinion of the new Charger down as "nice, but not spectacular"

Trev


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

ParkRNDL said:


> oh and on the other topic... I guess it's true that even if the new Charger is a good car, the name isn't really fitting. I was way disappointed when Chevy named that big piece of front-wheel-drive [email protected] the Impala, so I guess I see the point of the guys who are irate about the name. But i think the car should be given a chance anyway, it ain't no front-drive poser like the Impala is...
> 
> --rick


Yeah, but the difference is that the Imp was also a foor door model in the sixies.. Unfortunately the Charger had no such distinction.. they probably made it four doors so that could have better aero for the Nascar car.. It wouldn't be the first time a Car was produced by a manufactorer to have a better Stock car...


----------



## Piz (Apr 22, 2002)

I like it , I think it should have been called a Cuda instead of Charger , but with a Hemi in it I would buy one. Also my brother says the SRT version is going to blow everybody away ( 430hp Hemi with ground effect package and trim) . And finally. Folks here is an " Inside " scoop . If this car sells well , like or close to the numbers of the 300c , the designers have the green light to build a 2 door version . SO all of you Charger fans out there need to run out and lease these for 2 years and then when your lease is up Maybe just maybe the 2 doors will be ready .


----------



## A/FX Nut (May 28, 2004)

I kind of like it. You can see some resemblance to the 68/69 Charger. But the two extra doors have got to go!!!!! And the front grill is way off. Chrylser should've followed Ford's lead with the 2005 Mustang. If Dodge plans to race that Charger, they're going to have change that parachute of a front grill. Sorry to say aerodynamics is everything in NASCAR Nextel Cup and Bush Series racing these days.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> Sorry, AFXtoo, I don't get the sarcasm about the lug nuts. You don't like that manufacturers promote cars through racing?


No, I do like the fact that the manufacturers promote their products through racing. Now if the race cars actually looked ANYTHING like the model cars that they are supposed to represent (other than the accuracy of the lug nuts) then I would be even more excited about "stock" car racing. That picture of the Charger race car looks exactly like like the current NASCAR Intrepid, which also looks nothing like a real Intrepid. The NASCAR Taurus is the same way. I'd be happy if they were racing at 125 mph if the cars looked more like the real thing. But I guess it beats making the cars look like a big flying cell phone, which was probably the other choice.


----------



## JordanZ870 (Nov 25, 2004)

But most of the stockers DO look like flying cell phones, AFX Too.
They all have to fit within the whatchacallems.."guages". The diversity of the stockers in the 70's and early 80's was great!


----------



## vaBcHRog (Feb 19, 2003)

A/FX Nut said:


> I kind of like it. You can see some resemblance to the 68/69 Charger.


 Dog gone it I must be blind I can't see it anywhere. 

Now this is what Chrysler first showed everyone



















Now this is what they gave us










I'm sorry but the car above in no way resembles a Charger.

Roger Corrie


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

AfxToo said:


> No, I do like the fact that the manufacturers promote their products through racing. Now if the race cars actually looked ANYTHING like the model cars that they are supposed to represent (other than the accuracy of the lug nuts) then I would be even more excited about "stock" car racing. That picture of the Charger race car looks exactly like like the current NASCAR Intrepid, which also looks nothing like a real Intrepid. The NASCAR Taurus is the same way. I'd be happy if they were racing at 125 mph if the cars looked more like the real thing. But I guess it beats making the cars look like a big flying cell phone, which was probably the other choice.


Well yes, I dig what you say...but blame NASCAR, not Dodge. When the rules say you gotta fit the car into a certain template, there's not much you can do. I too think its dumb that all the cars look the same, but if you look at the Dodge name and look at it as a sponsorship, just like Viagra or Budweiser, rather than a product label, you'll be less disappointed. :thumbsup:

Its true that there's nothing stock about a "stock car", but at least they tell you that up front. They're not actually trying to fool you. 

Trev


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

vaBcHRog said:


> I'm sorry but the car above in no way resembles a Charger.


True, but the first two pics don't either.


----------



## TK Solver (Mar 18, 2004)

I liked the old concept Charger pictured above. It looked like a combo of a Vette and the original Intrepid -- two of my favorite cars. I guess Dodge decided to make it look more like a Mercedes-Benz than a Vette. Oops...


----------



## red73mustang (Aug 20, 2001)

The "Concept" Charger looks like a 90s Camaro on steroids with 2 extra doors thrown in. The Actual production car has a Truck for a nose on it and all it needs is a snow plow to complete the look. And I too have ridden in Goose’s Cadillac and lets just say "It's not slow" ! Comining froma Ford guy tha't a ringing endorsement.

Chet


----------



## roadrner (Jul 21, 1999)

Actually, if you look from the start of the rear door back, it looks more along the lines of the back end of the 69/70 Mustang as opposed to any MOPAR. :freak: rr


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I'm not blaming anyone. What's to blame? I like Dodge, heck I own nothing but Dodges. My Ram pickup would be happy to know that it's grandson, the new Charger, has some Ram blood in him. The family resemblance is unmistakable. 

It doesn't matter to me what Daimler-Chrysler calls their new cars or how NASCAR decides to present their entertainment product. I would like to see NASCAR bring more interest back in the car brands by returning to more authentic (street stock) looking cars. I don't think it would really matter if they slowed them down significantly. Who even cares how fast the NASCAR cars are going any more? I never even take notice of the qualifying speeds. The drivers are now rock stars and the races are like SuperBowl Sundays every week. The product sponsors (Bud, Viagra, M&Ms, etc.) for the cars probably derive more bang for their buck than do Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. The mechanical running gear is vintage 1968, so it's not a proving ground anymore. The notion of a "Dodge" beating a "Chevy" on Sunday is really meaningless. Today it's "Rusty" beating "Junior." (Like that's ever gonna happen...) 

Back in the earlier NASCAR era some race fans (like me) would eagerly watch the new automobile product announcements to see what models would likely be kickin butt on the tracks the next year, based on their race worthiness. The Charger Daytona, Mercury Cyclone, and Ford Talledega are some prime examples of the earlier close relationship between street cars and race cars. Yeah, it was a sad day for Mopar fans when the best Chrysler had to offer was the Cordoba. But what happened back then is that the auto manufacturers started taking over NASCAR with big R&D bucks to beat the other auto manufacturers for bragging rights. NASCAR slapped back. Now the pendulum has swung so far to the NASCAR side that they may divorce themselves entirely from the auto manufacturers and have their own "spec car" that serves only as a rolling sponsorship platform for their celebrity drivers. An extended sports uniform. I'm sure the loss of vehicle identity isn't lost on the auto manufacturers, like Pontiac. I'm not advocating that it swings back too far the other way, like Formula 1. I'd just like to see a better middle ground, something more than what it is today (the hood and part of the roof I think?).

I hope everyone else realizes all this banter is just a goof and just a forum to share ideas. Let the folks in Detroit (and Germany) deal with the reality since they're the ones putting up the big bucks.


----------



## A/FX Nut (May 28, 2004)

Nascar went to a common template last year. The front and rear of each make of car is different, the center is the same on all three. Nascar is trying to equal the playing field. I'm not a big fan of the changes made in NASCAR in the last 5 years, but I'm living with it. Roger, if you get a picture of the 68/69 Charger and compare it to the one posted I think you might see some resemblance. The other picture that appears in later this thread doesn't look anything like a Charger. Randy.


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

Piz said:


> I like it , I think it should have been called a Cuda instead of Charger , but with a Hemi in it I would buy one. Also my brother says the SRT version is going to blow everybody away ( 430hp Hemi with ground effect package and trim) . And finally. Folks here is an " Inside " scoop . If this car sells well , like or close to the numbers of the 300c , the designers have the green light to build a 2 door version . SO all of you Charger fans out there need to run out and lease these for 2 years and then when your lease is up Maybe just maybe the 2 doors will be ready .


Cuda would be a travesty as well.... It should be called something more like Belvedere or Satellite. Anything other than: Charger, Road Runner, Cuda, GTX, or Challenger.


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

roadrner said:


> Actually, if you look from the start of the rear door back, it looks more along the lines of the back end of the 69/70 Mustang as opposed to any MOPAR. :freak: rr


That's for the Stock car benefit. Nascar DOES use the cars template to make the stock car. They get to tweak it a little but there are supposed to use the lines for the street car as well, Obviously they get to tinker with the front end (otherwise, from the look of the street charger-and I refuse to Upper case charger anymore after seeing that shameful example- it would be like driving a brick doing 200 mph)


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

AfxToo said:


> I'm not blaming anyone. What's to blame? I like Dodge, heck I own nothing but Dodges. My Ram pickup would be happy to know that it's grandson, the new Charger, has some Ram blood in him. The family resemblance is unmistakable.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me what Daimler-Chrysler calls their new cars or how NASCAR decides to present their entertainment product. I would like to see NASCAR bring more interest back in the car brands by returning to more authentic (street stock) looking cars.


They cannot do that for two reasons... 

1) Part of the reason these cars look that way is for Safety concerns trying to protect the drivers in the cars, regarless of speeds, unless you want them all running around the track at a Blistering 55mph.

2) You'd have cars like the Superbird running around (Which isn't too bad of a concept, except the Dodge guys would probably make it four doors) which wouldn't be bad, but you'd have wildly unpreditable car markets with alot of cars that have no business on the roads.
I guess the second reason is mute as NASCAR has restrictions on Aerodynamics, because of said Superbird and it's Daytona cousin.


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

AfxToo said:


> I hope everyone else realizes all this banter is just a goof and just a forum to share ideas. Let the folks in Detroit (and Germany) deal with the reality since they're the ones putting up the big bucks.


Hey I won't argue. You just sounded kinda bitter in the "lug nuts" post. Just trying to make you feel better about watching the new Dodge Nascars. :hat: 

Trev


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I'm not getting older, I'm getting bitter.  

Nope, no problems here with the new Charger or with NASCAR. Just goofing on the roundy round funny cars --- oops I meant stockers.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

> Safety concerns


I understand some of this sentiment but 55 mph is a gross understatement. The early 70s cars looked amazingly like their street counterparts (even though it was a fascade even back then) and they were still doing upper 180s and cracking 200+. If I had to guess I'd say that the most dangerous part of a current racer's career is flying to and from the races and personal appearances in their private aircraft. I don't see safety and brand recognition on the track being mutually exclusive. They could do better in both areas. All I'm saying is I want to care about who is driving what but NASCAR has its own agenda to turn the sport into something else altogether. Times change and I'm okay with it moving in a different direction. It was nice for what it was while it lasted.


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

Mad Matt said:


> 1) Part of the reason these cars look that way is for Safety concerns trying to protect the drivers in the cars, regarless of speeds, unless you want them all running around the track at a Blistering 55mph.


Actually that's not true. If it was all about safety, they'd resemble current street cars even less. How often in the "old days" did you ever see a car just go sailing up in the air for no reason. I remember seeing Cale Yarborough in the Hardees TBird come down onto the apron, then take off like a bird. He hadn't even hit anything.

I could be all wet, (Im not an engineer) but I think that stuff happens cuz the cars are too low and no air gets under em. When some does, they take off, like a suction cup that lost its sticky. I think they actually have too much downforce considering the shape of the car. (why do Indy cars have so many wings)

I agree with AFX (if this is what he's saying) that maybe they should leave the bodies the way they are when they're stock, and let the ponies under the hood do the work, rather than the scientists running the wind tunnel testing.

Just rambling
Trev


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

AfxToo said:


> I understand some of this sentiment but 55 mph is a gross understatement. The early 70s cars looked amazingly like their street counterparts (even though it was a fascade even back then) and they were still doing upper 180s and cracking 200+. If I had to guess I'd say that the most dangerous part of a current racer's career is flying to and from the races and personal appearances in their private aircraft. I don't see safety and brand recognition on the track being mutually exclusive. They could do better in both areas. All I'm saying is I want to care about who is driving what but NASCAR has its own agenda to turn the sport into something else altogether. Times change and I'm okay with it moving in a different direction. It was nice for what it was while it lasted.


Alot of racers died horrible deaths in the sixties too, or should we just forget about that as long as the cars are 'Aesthetically pleasing'?
Don't get me wrong I know guys have died recently, usually of flukey accidents, but I would harard a guess to say the drivers would rather like to have all of what they have and sacrifice the looks.(Which is kinda sad, I don't like whatching a bunch of flying bricks go around in circles)
That's why they call that time Racing's 'Golden' age.. Driver were also more aggressive back then too, made for some interesting races from what I understand


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

Shadowracer said:


> Actually that's not true. If it was all about safety, they'd resemble current street cars even less. How often in the "old days" did you ever see a car just go sailing up in the air for no reason. I remember seeing Cale Yarborough in the Hardees TBird come down onto the apron, then take off like a bird. He hadn't even hit anything.
> 
> I could be all wet, (Im not an engineer) but I think that stuff happens cuz the cars are too low and no air gets under em. When some does, they take off, like a suction cup that lost its sticky. I think they actually have too much downforce considering the shape of the car. (why do Indy cars have so many wings)
> 
> ...


Actually the cars hitting near 200 were the Superbirds which were made for the track first THEN the dealership.. Cars were going in the direction of Aero back in 68 when Dodge came out with the Charger 500 and Ford came out with the Torino Talledega.


----------



## AfxToo (Aug 29, 2003)

I don't think the current NASCAR designs, where all of the cars basically look the same, was done for safety reasons. It was done to equalize the competition. I'd never advocate doing anything to reduce the safety of the race cars. No way. Making them look more like their street counterparts wouldn't do that. Giving up some aerodynamics is okay with me. The NASCAR vehicles have been a thin skin over a race specific chassis since the 60s. I'm just saying that once you get to a reasonable level of performance it's not the speed that really matters it's the competition. Today's competition at the Cup level is all about the drivers and not the car brands. That's fine. It's a different time and the game has changed. 

The most fun and excitement I've ever had watching racing was watching outlaw dirt cars and sportsmen cars battle it out on quarter mile dirt tracks. I have no idea how fast they were going, it was just a blast seeing them battle it out.


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

AfxToo said:


> I don't think the current NASCAR designs, where all of the cars basically look the same, was done for safety reasons. It was done to equalize the competition. I'd never advocate doing anything to reduce the safety of the race cars. No way. Making them look more like their street counterparts wouldn't do that. Giving up some aerodynamics is okay with me. The NASCAR vehicles have been a thin skin over a race specific chassis since the 60s. I'm just saying that once you get to a reasonable level of performance it's not the speed that really matters it's the competition. Today's competition at the Cup level is all about the drivers and not the car brands. That's fine. It's a different time and the game has changed.
> 
> The most fun and excitement I've ever had watching racing was watching outlaw dirt cars and sportsmen cars battle it out on quarter mile dirt tracks. I have no idea how fast they were going, it was just a blast seeing them battle it out.


Im more of a Demolition Derby guy myself... Talk about differences in cars! Wooooo boy :jest:


----------



## Shadowracer (Sep 11, 2004)

Mad Matt said:


> Alot of racers died horrible deaths in the sixties too, or should we just forget about that as long as the cars are 'Aesthetically pleasing'?


Wrong...but thanks for playing. Back then driver protection consisted of a lap belt, open face helmet, and a short sleeved golf shirt. Thats why they died horrible deaths. Car shape had nothing to do with it. 



Mad Matt said:


> Actually the cars hitting near 200 were the Superbirds which were made for the track first THEN the dealership.. Cars were going in the direction of Aero back in 68 when Dodge came out with the Charger 500 and Ford came out with the Torino Talledega.


I'll give you that, but things started to go wrong when they began to engineer the cars so no air would get under em. A SuperBird or Talladega, you could still see light beneath it, know what I'm saying? They were designed so the spoilers would hold them to the ground. Now the entire car serves to hold it to the ground, and the spoilers are just for handling. This is why they've been doing 200 at Talladega since the sixties, but didn't need restrictor plates till almost 1990.



AFXToo said:


> The most fun and excitement I've ever had watching racing was watching outlaw dirt cars and sportsmen cars battle it out on quarter mile dirt tracks. I have no idea how fast they were going, it was just a blast seeing them battle it out.


NOW you're talking. :thumbsup:


----------



## Mad Matt (Dec 16, 2004)

Shadowracer said:


> Wrong...but thanks for playing. Back then driver protection consisted of a lap belt, open face helmet, and a short sleeved golf shirt. Thats why they died horrible deaths. Car shape had nothing to do with it.


Yeah, sorry about that one.. Considering I wasn't even a twinkle in my dad's eye at that point I can get the facts skewed. 



Shadowracer said:


> I'll give you that, but things started to go wrong when they began to engineer the cars so no air would get under em. A SuperBird or Talladega, you could still see light beneath it, know what I'm saying? They were designed so the spoilers would hold them to the ground. Now the entire car serves to hold it to the ground, and the spoilers are just for handling. This is why they've been doing 200 at Talladega since the sixties, but didn't need restrictor plates till almost 1990.


Yeah I hear yeah about ground clearance..If Gordon was riding in a Sixies type of car that concrete he hit (was it last season or the season before?)it wouldn't have meant anything happening aside from some alignment damage 
but the point I meant is the cars in the sixies were almost street cars, I mean they were BRICKS... and Those cars in 68 on thru 70 really ushered in AERO as we know it, so while they were Awesome and weird rides they helped contribute to where AERO means more than brute power. I mean the Superbirds were hitting 200 mph and the cars were getting SUCKED to the ground, hence the little fender bulges in the front for the tires... Well that and NASCARs restriction on Cubes...


----------



## 1976Cordoba (Sep 20, 2000)

When NASCAR first started putting the airdams on the Buick LeSabres in the 1980s Richard Petty warned, "If you put those on you'll never get rid of them."

Well he was right -- I guess years of experience give you that kind of perspective. He is The King.

The cars now suck for looks in my opinion -- slab-sided jelly beans on wheels.

NASCAR should go back and redesign their chassis to fit the size of a modern car, not a 1981 Buick Regal or Chevy Monte Carlo -- the last time that NASCAR "downsized" their cars from 115" wheelbase to 110". Redesign the chassis with all the safety improvements incorporated into that they have learned since 1981.

Then run stock bodies and stock bumpers with minimal rear spoiler and let the horsepower and driver finesse settle who runs up front and who goes back to the Busch league.

'Doba


----------

