This looks like a fair deal--opinions please

News:

  • Home
  • Help
  • Chat
  • Login
  • Register

    • « previous next »
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]

    Author Topic: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please  (Read 10359 times)

    Offline _Russ_

    • Not very family friendly!
    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 667
    • Chk Chk Boom!
      • Show Me How To Live
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #75 on: June 05, 2010 - 12:41:40 AM »
    Quote from: mjb765 on June 04, 2010 - 08:28:27 PM
    The only thing that I don't like about 72 and later Challys is the nose. But that's just my opinion...that's why they make different models!

    Agreed - it's a frown, and makes the car look sad!

    Mate, just sent you a PM regarding a '70 Challenger you might be interested in.
    « Last Edit: June 05, 2010 - 12:45:01 AM by _Russ_ »
    Logged


    Offline mjb765

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 660
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #76 on: June 05, 2010 - 08:25:36 AM »
    Thanks for the PM and the offer, but I am only interested in 4 speeds.
    Logged

    Offline _Russ_

    • Not very family friendly!
    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 667
    • Chk Chk Boom!
      • Show Me How To Live
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #77 on: June 05, 2010 - 05:09:39 PM »
    No worries!
    Logged

    Offline mjb765

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 660
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #78 on: June 05, 2010 - 10:33:52 PM »
    Looks like I am going to get this at the end of the week. 71 R/T matching #'s, build sheet, fender tag, 40,000 documented miles.....


    Logged

    Offline 1BADFISH™

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 2805
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #79 on: June 06, 2010 - 12:41:17 AM »
    Nice looking Car! Whats in her for an engine?  :2thumbs:
    Logged

    Dave
    Charlottetown, PE
    2014 GMC Sierra Crew Cab White Diamond edition.
    1970 Dodge Challenger 340-6 4spd.
    *Member Since* Oct 11, 2005

    Offline mjb765

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 660
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #80 on: June 06, 2010 - 05:48:11 PM »
    Matching numbers 340 with a 4 speed...I can always put that in the corner of the garage for safe keeping and throw a big block in there if I want!!!
    Logged

    Offline peterro

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • 70 Challenger in progress...
      • The Pistonhead
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #81 on: June 06, 2010 - 09:47:48 PM »
    Hmm for some reason I had thought that an R/T implied a big block. Have I been wrong?
    Logged

    Offline rallye73

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 351
    • Model cars for the big boys!!
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #82 on: June 07, 2010 - 12:17:55 AM »
    1970 was big block only for the R/T. In 1971 the 383 was the standard engine. The 340, 440-6, and Hemi were all options in the R/T.
    Logged
    John Moorman
    1971 Challenger R/T 383 4 speed (waiting it's turn)
    1973 Challenger Rallye 340 4 speed (undergoing full resto)
    2003 Dodge SRT-4 Stage 3 turbo daily driver-been as fast as 11.97et
    1995 Dodge Neon Sport Coupe DOHC 5 speed Nitro-yellow-green (one of 527 built)

    Offline peterro

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 713
    • 70 Challenger in progress...
      • The Pistonhead
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #83 on: June 07, 2010 - 02:06:37 AM »
    Well that makes sense why I would think that since I have a 70.
    Logged

    Offline autoxcuda

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 572
      • Spring Fling
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #84 on: June 07, 2010 - 01:08:24 PM »
    Quote from: rallye73 on June 07, 2010 - 12:17:55 AM
    1970 was big block only for the R/T. In 1971 the 383 was the standard engine. The 340, 440-6, and Hemi were all options in the R/T.

    In 1971 the 340 was optional on the Super Bee and Road Runner also.
    Logged
    Spring Fling XXX
    April 22 & 23 2016
    at Woodley Park Van Nuys, CA.
    Special 30th Anniversary Event!
    600+ Mopars, 300+ swappers,  50+ manf. midways.
    Thrus: Mopar Track Day at Willow Springs Raceway
    Fri: Caravan & Cruise
    Sat: Mopar Cruise-In

    Offline HP2

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 4478
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #85 on: June 07, 2010 - 07:02:49 PM »
    Quote from: mjb765 on June 04, 2010 - 08:28:27 PM
    The only thing that I don't like about 72 and later Challys is the nose.

    Quote from: _Russ_ on June 05, 2010 - 12:41:40 AM
    Agreed - it's a frown, and makes the car look sad!

    Just curious, and this is an open question for anyone, not just the two referenced above, but the same basic grill configuration and layout is used in '67 and '68 Mustangs, yet they seem  much more attractive. What aspect of a Mustang nose makes their grill more appealling than the comparable Challenger grill?
    Logged

    Offline NoMope Greg

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 3166
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #86 on: June 07, 2010 - 07:37:03 PM »
    Quote from: HP2 on June 07, 2010 - 07:02:49 PM
    Just curious, and this is an open question for anyone, not just the two referenced above, but the same basic grill configuration and layout is used in '67 and '68 Mustangs, yet they seem  much more attractive. What aspect of a Mustang nose makes their grill more appealling than the comparable Challenger grill?


    After comparing the two, I think there are three aspects that are different between the Challenger and the Mustang grilles that make the Mustang less "sad-faced."  First is that the Challenger grille has the header panel between the hood and the grille opening, giving it more of a droopy appearance.  Second, the grille on the Challenger increases in width more from top to bottom compared to the Mustang, with a more-pronounced curve to the transition from horizontal to vertical at the top, giving it the aspect of a turned-down/sad mouth. Last, the Challenger grille extends below the bumper while the Mustang grille is entirely above the bumper.  The Mustang looks aggressive while the Challenger looks (I hate to say this) "tired."   :2cents:  I did notice in my image searches that Challengers with body-colored bumpers look more aggressive compared to the stock chrome bumpers.




    Logged
    Greg
    2003 Ford Escape XLS
    Currently Mopar-less :(

    Offline mjb765

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 660
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #87 on: June 07, 2010 - 08:18:50 PM »
    You are right!! The one with the body colored bumper does not look as droopy as the one with the chrome bumper. Interesting find.....I'm still stuck on the 70-71 style though
    Logged

    Offline HP2

    • Resident
    • *****
    • Posts: 4478
    Re: This looks like a fair deal--opinions please
    « Reply #88 on: June 08, 2010 - 10:59:21 AM »
    I agree that the color mix can alter the appearance of the later Challengers. Perhaps having that huge expanse of body color is part of the problem. The '74 in my avatar is all blacked out on the nose and does not match the body. In this case, Chrome bumper looks good, but the lack of body color has a big impact on the overall appearence.

    I can see thestandard Mustang has a less "sad" look. Shelbys do look a little different though, and do appear more like a Challenger. Thoughts on those?



    « Last Edit: June 08, 2010 - 11:09:21 AM by HP2 »
    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]
    « previous next »