Ragtopchally,
Can you figure out why Cudas are more expensive than
Anyone?
P.G.Challengers? When they were produced, Chrysler marketed the Challenger as the more expensive "Luxury Toy" of the two. Now the Cuda is. I know I lean toward the Cuda myself, because of the look.
Cudas are more rare.
1971 Cudas can still be had in convertible form w/options up to the Hemi, with cool Shaker hoods.
1971 had no HiPo versions of the Challenger R/T in convertible form.
Cudas are smaller, thus a little more compact looking, which appeals to a broader base.
Nash Bridges help catapult the Cuda to stardom.
Cudas look great stock.
Challengers stock, can look a little dowdy. The longitudal stripe makes the Challenger look overly long. Many times the ass of the Challenger looks like it's dragging (like Mustangs do).
For a Challener to look good IMHO, should have a bumblebee stripe (to make it look shorter) and have the arse jacked up slightly and the nose dropped slightly. I.e. it needs a rake.
'course, the 1971 Challenger side stripe looks simply awesome. Better than the 1970 stripes.
In person, I prefer a well-done Challenger over a Cuda, but in pictures, the Cuda looks awesome. The flat sides of a Barracuda can look kinda bland and definitely needs sprucing up with a hockey stick or billboard stripe.
The Cuda also looks more modern when coupled w/elastomeric bumpers. The Challenger doesn't quite look right w/painted bumpers (IMHO).
It's all personal preference, but the Cuda, thanks to its exclusivity, compactness, Shaker hoods, and the "Hemicuda" mystique, it will always command higher prices.
