Everyone likes to think "the old days" were better. In many ways they were -- common courtesy was actually common, gas was under a buck a gallon and the musicians who made the Billboard Top Ten actually possessed musical talent. But in others they weren't better; there was civil unrest, more pollution and no internet. But I digress...
Muscle car guys -- and I've been guilty of this too -- like to think 1970 was the pinnacle of performance, at least that of the straight-line acceleration kind. Well, it was for a long time, what with the LS6 Chevelle, 455 Stage 1 Gran Sport and 426 Hemi Cudas and Challengers. Long story short, I was curious as to how our modern "small" 5.7-liter Hemi Challenger (as opposed to the SRT's 6.1-liter Hemi) stacks up against its larger-than-life 1970 426 Hemi forebear. And yes, I know our long-termer benefits from four additional decades of tire, suspension and brake technology advancements...
As a bonus, here's a link to our history lesson on the Challenger (and its Plymouth cousin, the Barracuda).
2009 Challenger R/T Hemi: 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi:
0-60 MPH: 5.5 sec 5.8 sec
1/4 Mile: 13.9 sec 14.0 sec
60-0 Braking: 128 ft Huh?
Slalom: 64.7 mph What?
John DiPietro, Automotive Editor
coletrickle says:
06:20 AM, 10/22/09
I bet the inside of that 1970 Challenger smells EXACTLY as a muscle car should - a combination of: motor oil, vinyl, Brut cologne, and sex.
The 2008 smells like cheap Chinese plastic.
mrryte says:
07:14 AM, 10/22/09
Is there a noticeable difference in ergonomics? Do the seats in the 2009 Challenger feel more supportive?
"common courtesy was actually common"
Common sense too.....then again; disciplining children with a belt wasn't considered "child abuse" back then. :-/
wrinklebump says:
07:58 AM, 10/22/09
Actually I'm pretty impressed with the 1970 Challenger. It's quick for being 40 years old.
bodyblue says:
08:29 AM, 10/22/09
I would like to see an actual test of the '70 with modern tires..... the numbers you are using are from tests 40 years ago. I assume you have heard a 426 with all 8 barrels wide open in full song? NOTHING can compare to that noise.....that being said 340 six pack Challengers were the thing to get......almost the same HP with a lot less poundage and a hell of a lot easier to keep in tune with no piston slap when cold etc......the old Hemi was a race engine that was de-tuned for the street.....for street use a 440 wedge could stay with the Hemi on most days, with a lot less work.
stephen987 says:
08:41 AM, 10/22/09
Add me to the list of those who'd rather have the 340 six-pack. Much better handling on top of what bodyblue already mentioned.
jriz says:
08:41 AM, 10/22/09
Hey man, Lady GaGa can play the piano while sitting in a steel globe. Now that's talent.
2002blksle says:
10:12 AM, 10/22/09
You forgot a few comparisons:
sliding off the road and hitting a tree:
2009 Challenger R/T Hemi: Survive 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi: Die
Smell of Girlfriend/passanger's hair
2009 Challenger R/T Hemi: strawberries 1970 Challenger R/T Hemi: Gas
hybris says:
10:31 AM, 10/22/09
I can only dream of what sort of performance you could get if you took a 440 and build it with today's tech minus the environmental stuff it would be epic.
rapidtransit says:
10:43 AM, 10/22/09
Who's driving the 2009 R/T at 5.5 0-60 - your grandma? I could miss a shift and still get 5.5. Try 4.9, that's the bone stock 0-60 for anyone who knows how to drive a stick.
firstwagon says:
11:33 AM, 10/22/09
How are you measuring the 4.9?
I have never seen a test that fast even with professionals driving. Are you using slicks?
ekimfeenux says:
12:57 PM, 10/22/09
@coletrickle
"I bet the inside of that 1970 Challenger smells EXACTLY as a muscle car should - a combination of: motor oil, vinyl, Brut cologne, and sex."
That made my day after one horrendous college exam. Thank you for that one.
johnnyturbo says:
02:48 PM, 10/22/09
rapidtransit,
I've never seen a sub-5 second time for the Challenger R/T. I'm sure if you have another beer and then re-post, your mythical number will become 4.7.
sealclubb3r says:
03:13 PM, 10/22/09
"I bet the inside of that 1970 Challenger smells EXACTLY as a muscle car should - a combination of: motor oil, vinyl, Brut cologne, and sex."
A 1992 911 Turbo I was in once smelt just like that if you replace the vinyl smell with the smell of old leather. It was the manliest thing I've ever smelt. My sperm count went up just for being in the car.
rda717409 says:
05:53 PM, 10/22/09
Motortrend says the 0-60 time for the R/T is 5.1, so maybe rapidtransit isn't so far off.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0809_2009_dodge_challenger_testing/2009_dodge_challenger_rt.html
rapidtransit says:
10:31 AM, 10/23/09
No slicks - bone stock. Using the built-in EVIC 0-60 timer. The exact number is 4.94. If you follow the Challenger forums closely, you will find that many believe the 5.7 Hemi with the 6-speed manual to be every bit as stout as the 6.1 Hemi. Factory specs only rate it 50 hp less and 16 ft lbs less - dynos have actually proved the 5.7 specs are underrated. It's a beast and a blast to drive!
majin_ssj_eric says:
08:29 AM, 10/24/09
I, for one, would rather have a modern car over any of those supposed 60's-70's car "legends". My G37 would eat that old Challenger in the 1/4 mile and then disappear from it at the first corner. And it only needs a 3.7 liter 6 cylinder engine to do it!
cr_driver says:
10:28 AM, 10/26/09
All those numbers stated above remind me of how much the perfomance of this muscle car sucks, THANKS.
cstorm says:
11:45 AM, 10/26/09
@majin_ssj_eric, no offense, but the difference is that no one will be talking about your G37 in 40 years. I have driven one, very nice car. But it has no soul. And that is what the American muscle/pony car has always had.
It's like people who compare a Japanese sportbike to a Harley. Yes, the sportbike will go faster, turn better, and be less expensive to buy. But at the end of the day the Harley is the legendary bike that everyone aspires to sooner or later.
yellowmiata says:
11:55 AM, 10/26/09
Many people reminisce about the "old days" with "well, if we added this and removed that, my 40 year old car will spank your new wimpy 6 cylinder." Maybe if you did this and did that, but leave it stock and newer cars will put down decent numbers AND won't ruin the planet for your children. The emissions laws are here to help us survive on a longer timeline than a 1/4 mile. Perhaps a bit more conscientiousness is required to understand this. Besides, I like twisty roads, they separate the haulers from the handlers.
cstorm- Good point about motorcycles: When comparing a Yamaha / Honda / Suzuki / Kawasaki to a Harley - I guess it depends on what people are purchasing: either performance or an image. What brand has people tattooing their logo on their backs? Which has won more superbike races? Which is leading in hp/litre technology? The question I wonder is "If performance is the ultimate yardstick, why is anyone concerned with image?" Harley is not kidding itself - Harley Davidson is a marketing company that manufacturers motorcycles. And HD excels at this. As for "everyone aspires" to a HD, sorry, I value performance over image.
What do others think? Performance or Image? Turbo-charged Corolla? or V6 Mustang?