http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=120457#4

edmunds drives the superstock challenger concept. they got the weight down to ~3500, the 392 has 540 hp. of course, this is probably only graphically indicative of the production car, whose chassis doesn't even exist in production-ready (LY, not LX) form, so who knows what the actual weight will be. I also suspect the srt8 will be the 6.1L, not the 6.4L (392 cu in.) So we know exactly dick, specifically

4/20/2007 12:38:32 AM

actually, it's been well established that the superstock concept includes a number of things the production challenger won't see. production models will also be quite a bit porkier, estimates are in at 3700-3900 lbs.

expect base motor to be the 5.7 and the srt to be the 6.1. rumors of a convertible and even more engine are rumored in year two.

i've got a sharp eye on these things. if there is any new vehicle that money would fly out of my pocket for, it'd be some modern mopar muscle.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

4/20/2007 12:59:28 AM

that thing looks badass. I've been waiting for something like this to hit the streets.

4/20/2007 3:55:08 AM

the porkyness is crucial though. we are in cobra/GT500 territory

4/20/2007 3:05:14 PM

yeah, I'm hoping chrysler really keeps an eye on curb weight, which seems silly considering the size of the thing, but compared to a magnum srt8, which has got to be pushing 4300 lbs without driver and gas, I'm pretty sure this is going to be the flyweight of the line.

I wish the avenger had been derived from the current c-class or something. The production avenger is just embarassing, but it has the footprint a modern "challenger" probably should have had. But at least the look is totally right on the new challenger, provided it looks just like the debut concept and the super stock concept.

4/20/2007 3:18:38 PM

mmmmmmmm that shit is probz faster than my 600rr with an average rider . i like it!

4/20/2007 3:19:10 PM

i could careless if it is slow or fat, that thing looks great.

4/20/2007 3:25:46 PM

it's pretty gay to reproduce the origional almost exactly. atleast ford and chevy only used the origionals as inspiration.

4/20/2007 3:31:18 PM

^uh, it's definitely no more original than the new mustang or the camaro concept.

this car will not be light. if it's 3600-3700 or less i'll be stunned.

4/20/2007 5:30:00 PM

Quote :

"it's pretty gay to reproduce the origional almost exactly."

If by gay you mean fucking awesome, then I completely agree.

4/22/2007 6:26:46 PM

Im not a big chrysler fan but that car looks the part better than the mustang.

4/22/2007 9:11:32 PM

pretty sure i just blew one in my pants. havent really followed the new one besides little inserts in hotrod mag etc but that S/S is nasty. first glimpse i swore it was 1970 all over again. nose looks a little bloated but the body line and 6pack scoop


after reading more that things a damn stud

[Edited on April 23, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2007 12:23:11 AM

dammit. you should know why I'm upset from this pic

[Edited on April 29, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2007/04/dodge-challenger-production-version.html]

[Edited on April 29, 2007 at 8:16 PM. Reason : yeah, the b-pillar. the flange may or may not be production, but that pillar looks like it is..]

4/29/2007 8:01:53 PM

^not sure what you don't like from the pics, but i'm not a fan of that b pillar at all. i figured they'd probably add one for rollover ratings or whatever though.

4/29/2007 8:10:00 PM

meh they do that kinda shit today. with the right tinted glass on the small window you wont see the pillar from the outside.

4/29/2007 11:26:13 PM

^my thoughts exactly.

4/29/2007 11:37:42 PM

^^i don't know, that doesn't appear to be a hidden type pillar. like what our a bodies have for example...

imo, that thing ruins the lines of the car from the side. i guess i'll have to see one with a door/glass to decide for sure though.

4/29/2007 11:52:25 PM

actually after i said that it did look like it would be exposed on the outside judging by the recess. sucks, hopefully theres no ungodly exposed weatherstripping holding the glass in

a minitub job is looking tricky and how exposed would a set of subframe connectors be in that interior :-/. dont guess common folk would cut it up like me. whats the rear suspension set up on this playform supposed to be, maybe some kinda 5-link or something not irs hopefully

[Edited on April 30, 2007 at 12:26 AM. Reason : .]

4/30/2007 12:23:44 AM

its nice, but it looks too much like the old version, I like the old cars, but I like to see the old styling updated a bit too (ie new mustang, production challenger concept)

4/30/2007 12:25:10 AM

i imagine it'll be glue in. there's only a few if any vehicles i can think of that still use weatherstripping to retain windows.

i guess we should keep in mind these are just test mules before speculating too much... not production representations.

4/30/2007 12:27:52 AM

^^^ of course it's going to be IRS. It's all derived from the other LX platform cars, which comes from the old mercedes e class.

I think it's the e class.

4/30/2007 8:42:31 AM

partially correct. the lx platform was kind of a parts bin special that came shortly after the merger. chrysler engineers were eager to throw some daimler parts on something. e class rear suspension, s class front. also carries the benz 5 speed auto, differential, and esp system. it was developed here though.

i feel pretty sure the ly platform will be only available in irs, since it's shared with the charger/300. like the lx, it's a very versatile platform though. maybe we'll be surprised with a 5 link solid rear for the challenger. some aam varient possibly.

5/1/2007 12:52:39 AM

^you know, if it helps chrysler get the cost down, I might actually be ok with a solid rear? it's not exactly a miata to begin with.

5/1/2007 1:04:16 AM

not only cost, but a solid rear pwns in straight line acceleration. like you said, the weight of this behemoth is going to rule out any stellar handling, though i expect it will be on par with the gto, mustang, etc.

also, it's much harder to make an irs work in drag situations than it is to make a solid work on road course situations.

[Edited on May 1, 2007 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .]

5/1/2007 1:06:53 AM

just gotta get some dax camber compensation on that mug. or a de dion....
http://www.daxcars.co.uk/images/CC&AR-1.jpg

5/1/2007 1:20:17 AM