Introducing the 2008 Dodge Challenger

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

jennyjenny - 10 May 2008 11:36 GMT

Brembo 4-piston brakes come on all four corners with 14.2" rotors up
front and 13.8" rotors in the rear. ABS is also standard to aid in the
stopping power and enables quick inputs from the driver...
http://tbmcars.googlepages.com/introducing_2008_dodge_challenger

Reply to this Message

C. E. White - 16 May 2008 18:24 GMT

> Brembo 4-piston brakes come on all four corners with 14.2" rotors up
> front and 13.8" rotors in the rear. ABS is also standard to aid in the
> stopping power and enables quick inputs from the driver...
> http://tbmcars.googlepages.com/introducing_2008_dodge_challenger

I thought the Challenger was a 2009 Model and with a MSRP of nearly $40k for
the SRT8 model, I doubt I'll be buying one. Typical Chrysler screw up, too
late to the market with an overpriced POS. I am old enough to remember the
original Challenger. What a horrible POS that was. However, since it was so
unpopular then, it how has become a collector classic. I was talking to guy
in the paint store that was retromoding one for a client. He was buying
original color paint, but almost everything under the skin was going to be
"new" (new engine, new transmission, new suspension). I suppose if you threw
away all the original Chrysler junk and replaced it with modern stuff, the
car might be OK, but I think the guy told me the finished car was going to
cost over 60K.

Ed

Reply to this Message

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada - 16 May 2008 20:17 GMT

>> Brembo 4-piston brakes come on all four corners with 14.2" rotors up
>> front and 13.8" rotors in the rear. ABS is also standard to aid in the
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Ed

The "original" challenger was NOT a bad car - given the technlogy of
the time, and compared to it's competition. Yes, the 'Cuda was more
popular, and VERY close to the same car (challenger was a bit longer
and heavier)
Anything that was not good about the Challenger was also not good
about the original Mustang and Camaro.

Now, the SECOND itteration of the Challenger (and its sister the
Saporo) were CRAP. MitsuShitty garbage from end to end, and skin to
core.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Reply to this Message

C. E. White - 16 May 2008 22:25 GMT

> The "original" challenger was NOT a bad car - given the technlogy of
> the time, and compared to it's competition. Yes, the 'Cuda was more
> popular, and VERY close to the same car (challenger was a bit longer
> and heavier)

Did you ever drive one? I did - when it was new. It drove worse than a 1972
Ford Country Squire Station Wagon (which I also drove at the time). Arguably
one of the worst cars Chrysler ever built (well I guess I can't legitably
say that since Chrysler also built the Aspen and Volarie about the same
time).

Actually there were virtually no differences between the Challenger and the
same year model Barracuda. And they were both POSs. I agree they were no
worse that the 73 / 74 Mustangs, but that is not saying much. Too big, too
heavy, handled like crap. At least the Mustangs tended to stay together a
little better. The only excuse for buying one was to get a hemi. We actually
had a Hemi Cuda Convertible at the dealer in my home town - which was out of
buisness within a year. Not sure where the car went. It would be worth a
fortune today.

> Anything that was not good about the Challenger was also not good
> about the original Mustang and Camaro.

Not true. The ORIGINAL Mustang and Camaros were smaller, lighter and less
expensive. So was the original Barracuda (really just a Valiant with a
slightly better looking body). I actually liked the original Barracuda. But
when they updated it at the same time they introduced the Challenger, they
turned it into a POS. The same thing happened to the Mustang. Things were
not too bad until they went to the shortened coil spring Torino chassis in
1973. That model Mustang was just too damn big. The Camaro never suffered as
much, they just got a little bigger and a lot heavier. The original Camaro
was a nice car. They when downhill from there, but not as far downhill as
the 1973 Mustang. The Mustang did not recover until the Fox Mustangs were
released. The Camaro never recovered (well maybe it will when the new one is
introduced). Unfortunately, it seems to me Ford is repeating history with
the Mustang. The current Mustangs are significantly larger / heavier / more
expensive to build than the Fox chassis derived Mustangs. They are arguably
better, but I worry Ford might try to move the next generation "upscale" to
compete with the perceived coolness of the Challenger.

> Now, the SECOND itteration of the Challenger (and its sister the
> Saporo) were CRAP. MitsuShitty garbage from end to end, and skin to
> core.

I didn't even consider those as worthy of comment.

Ed

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread: