Successful car design is as much a matter of prognostication as engineering skill or styling acumen. To be successful, a design has to take into account not only where the market is now, but where it’s going to be three years from now. If you show up late to the dance, it may not matter how stylishly you’re dressed or how clever your moves may be. Dodge learned that the hard way in the early 1970s when it made its belated entry into the “pony car” market: the formidable but ill-fated 1970–1974 Dodge Challenger.
LATE TO THE PARTY
When we last checked in with the Dodge Boys, it was 1965 and the success of the Ford Mustang had Dodge dealers up in arms, calling for their own entry into the booming ‘specialty car’ market. Plymouth had the Barracuda, a fastback version of the compact Valiant, but Dodge had nothing.
Bowing to pressure from dealers and division managers, Chrysler president Lynn Townsend had authorized the creation of a new, sporty Dodge, but insisted that it not be based on the Barracuda. The result of Dodge’s efforts, as we have seen, was the midsize, Coronet-based 1966–1967 Dodge Charger, which proved to be something of a flop.
Not long after the second-generation Barracuda bowed in November 1966, Chrysler’s Advanced Styling studio began design work on the third-generation car, which was slated to bow for the 1970 model year. It was an important project because the sporty car market was continuing to heat up. The Chevrolet Camaro had just gone on sale, as had the Mercury Cougar, a plusher version of the Mustang. The Pontiac Firebird was then only a few months away and even AMC was planning to get into the act with its sporty Javelin. These “pony cars” would ultimately account for about 13% of all U.S. car sales for the 1967 model year.
With numbers like that, Dodge definitely wanted a piece of the action, so it was decided that the third-generation Barracuda would be joined by a Dodge version called Challenger.
The 1970 Dodge Challenger’s nose looks very similar to that of its Plymouth Barracuda sibling in general theme, although the Barracuda is distinguished by single headlamps and a different grille treatment (Barracudas have a divided horizontal slot, painted argent). Chrysler stylists had wanted to use a body-colored, deformable urethane nose, à la the contemporary Pontiac GTO, which is why the bumpers are sunken into the front and rear fenders. Unfortunately, the technology was beyond the E-body’s development budget, although “Elastometric” urethane bumper covers, painted body color, were optional.
THE BARRACUDA CHALLENGE
When several divisions of a car company offer vehicles in the same class, it’s almost inevitable that the resulting cars will be variations of the same design, a strategy known as platform sharing. At GM in those days, the individual divisions shared body shells, but had unique chassis, engines, and sometimes transmissions. At Ford and Chrysler, which lacked GM’s depth of resources, the different divisions shared chassis and powertrains as well as bodies and other hardware. It was no surprise, then, that the third-generation Plymouth Barracuda and its new Dodge sibling shared the same basic unit body as well as the same engines, transmissions, brakes, and suspension layout.
The new cars would be bigger than the outgoing Barracuda, sharing a new “E-body” shell. The earlier Barracudas had been based on the A-body of the compact Plymouth Valiant. The A-body had enjoyed a reputation for nimble handling, but its engine compartment had been designed for smaller engines: Chrysler’s “slant six” and small-block, LA-series V8s. When the competition began offering big-block engines in the Mustang and Camaro, Plymouth managed to cram the big B-series 383 cu. in. (6,276 cc) engine into the Barracuda, but it was such a tight fit that offering power steering and air conditioning became problematic.
To ensure that the E-body would have room for any Chrysler engine, the Barracuda and Challenger shared the cowl dimensions (the body cross-section just forward of the windshield) of the bigger B-body Charger and Coronet. That provided plenty of room and made the E-body somewhat more economical to build, but made the new pony car substantially wider and heavier than the A-body Barracuda.
Since the E-body Dodge Challenger shares its body shell with the contemporary Plymouth Barracuda, it’s difficult to tell them apart at a glance unless you know what you’re looking for. Their proportions are very similar and their roof lines almost identical, but a 1970 Dodge Challenger is larger than its Plymouth sibling in both wheelbase (110 inches (2,794 mm) versus 108 (2,743 mm)) and overall length (191.3 inches (4,859 mm) versus 186.7 (4,742 mm)). The Challenger R/T came with stronger body reinforcements and a heavy-duty “Rallye” suspension; this one also has front disc brakes. Styled wheels were optional, although this car’s great-looking Cragar alloys are aftermarket additions.
With shared body shells and running gear, differentiating the Dodge Challenger from the Plymouth Barracuda presented a challenge for Chrysler stylists. The two cars were styled separately — the Challenger was primarily the work of stylist Carl Cameron, who also penned the first-generation Charger, while the Barracuda was drawn by John Herlitz of the Plymouth studio — and they shared no common sheet metal. The Challenger was somewhat longer than the Barracuda and about 1.5 inches (38 mm) wider, although both shared the same front and rear track dimensions. Still, with slightly different skins stretched over the same body and the same roof, there was no way they were going to look significantly different. At a distance, it was difficult to tell them apart.
What the E-bodies actually ended up resembling, more than anything else, were the contemporary Camaro and Firebird. It’s not clear how intentional that resemblance may have been; neither Cameron nor Dodge Division styling chief Bill Brownlie have ever indicated any conscious intent to ape their GM rivals. Nonetheless, the Chrysler and GM pony cars all shared some common themes: long hood and short deck, a wedge shape in profile, and bulging and muscular in detail.
Ironically, shortly after the Barracuda and Challenger debuted GM launched the restyled 1970½ Camaro and Firebird, which had a softer, more curvaceous, almost Italianate style that immediately made the E-bodies look somewhat dated. Nonetheless, if the Challenger and Barracuda were not the most au courant of pony cars, they were certainly the most aggressive-looking.
This 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T’s radioactive green paint is called SubLime, Dodge paint code FJ5; the color of the car in the photos has NOT been retouched or enhanced. SubLime was one of five optional “high-impact” colors costing around $15 extra. The E-body Challenger’s body sides are different than the Barracuda’s, with flared character lines extending into the fenders that make it about an inch and a half wider overall than the Plymouth. They’re accentuated by the side stripes, which were optional.
That aggressive styling could be backed up with some of Detroit’s most formidable engines. The E-body Challenger came standard with the 225 cu. in. (3,696 cc) Slant Six, but there were eight optional engines, including the 426 cu. in. (6,974 cc) Hemi, which made a nominal 425 gross horsepower (317 kW). With three different available transmissions (three- and four-speed manuals and the TorqueFlite automatic), there were more than 20 powertrain combinations on offer with performance ranging from adequate to excessive.
The choices didn’t stop with the powertrain; Chrysler was determined to beat all comers when it came to optional equipment. Beyond the usual array of power accessories, radios, tape players, and air conditioning, there were five different hoods; two different styles of racing stripes; a choice of cloth, vinyl, or leather upholstery; and 18 paint colors, including five extra-cost “high-impact” colors like the gaudy nuclear green of the photo car. There were so many options that few truly identical Challengers left the assembly line.
THE DODGE CHALLENGER BELLY FLOPS
When the 1970 Dodge Challenger went on sale at the end of August 1969 there was great excitement at the Dodge Division. The E-body Challenger was fashionably late, to be sure, but with bold looks, copious power, and a blizzard of options — everything sporty car buyers seemed to want — how could it miss? The corporation confidently projected annual E-body sales of 200,000 units.
This “Power Bulge” hood was optional on base E-body Challengers, standard on the Challenger R/T. The scoops don’t do anything except collect debris; if you wanted a functional scoop on your Challenger, you needed to order the optional ($97) “shaker” hood, which was actually a raised air cleaner on the engine that protruded through a hole in the hood. The matte-black paint treatment was another option. The engine call-outs indicate the presence of Dodge’s second most formidable engine, the 440 cu. in. (7,206 cc) RB V8 with three two-barrel carburetors and a nominal 390 gross horsepower (291 kW).
Unfortunately, the Dodge Challenger and E-body Barracuda met with a lukewarm reception. With the bigger engines, they had no shortage of power, but their muscle was somewhat blunted by the E-body’s considerable weight. The 426 cu. in. (6,974 cc) Hemi was naturally the performance leader of the line, but it was very expensive and came with a shorter, more restrictive warranty. Our photo car’s optional 440 cu. in. (7,206 cc) Six Pack V8, with three two-barrel Holley carburetors and a nominal rating of 390 gross horsepower (291 kW), provided comparable performance for less than half the cost of the Hemi. The triple-carburetor 440 also promised somewhat better fuel economy when feather-footing, although in workaday street use, the vacuum-operated carburetor linkage could make the 440-6 a handful, engaging the front and rear carbs at the engine’s whim rather than that of the driver. If you didn’t want to deal with that, there were also a plain 440 Magnum, with 15 fewer horsepower (11 kW less) and a simpler single four-barrel carburetor.
The most sensible engine for normal driving was the small-block 340 cu. in. (5,567 cc) V8, which offered either 275 gross horsepower (205 kW) in standard form or 290 hp (216 kW) in the limited-production Challenger T/A. The 340 was nearly as quick as the big-block engines on the street and was substantially lighter, offering better weight distribution. The basic 318 cu. in. (5,204 cc) V8, meanwhile, was adequate, but not as sprightly as it would have been in a lighter Valiant.
The E-body Challenger and its Barracuda sibling were quintessential American muscle cars: fast in a straight line, at least with the right engine, but a long way from nimble. The basic suspension layout was the same as any Chrysler’s, with unequal length control arms and torsion bars up front and a live axle on parallel leaf springs in back, but even the stiffest iterations did not produce anything we would now recognize as good handling. Sports Car Graphic‘s November 1969 test of a 1970 Dodge Challenger 440 recorded lateral acceleration figures that could be handily beaten by a number of modern full-size SUVs. Obtaining even those modest figures was complicated by the fact that hard turns could hamper both fuel flow and oil circulation. With the Challenger’s substantial front weight bias, understeer was considerable, although the more powerful engines allowed lurid power-on oversteer to be summoned readily, not necessarily on purpose.
With any but the lightest engines, power steering was basically mandatory, but the customary lack of feel did nothing to improve driver confidence. By the standards of contemporary American sedans, the E-body Challenger and Barracuda didn’t handle badly, but for sporty cars, they were cumbersome and clumsy, possessing none of the agility expected of the breed.
Brakes were another sore point. Front disc brakes were still an extra-cost option and even when ordered were marginal for the weight of the big-engined cars. Stopping performance was further hampered by a penchant for rear axle hop, which only the ultra-stiff rear springs included with the 426 Hemi could quell effectively. The issue was not the brakes themselves, but the fact that the axle was closer to the front spring shackles rather than in the middle of the springs, which improved axle control on acceleration, but allowed too much axle movement on a panic stop.
Other E-body Challenger foibles included mediocre visibility, a cramped interior for the sizable exterior dimensions, and dismal gas mileage that barely edged into the double digits (more than 20 L/100 km). Critics also had unkind words about the car’s build quality. By that time, Chrysler had a decided checkered reputation for quality control and the thousands of different possible combinations of options available on the E-bodies almost certainly didn’t help.
Perhaps the greatest shortcoming was price. A six-cylinder coupe started at $2,851, $130 more than the cheapest Mustang hardtop, while the Challenger R/T began at a hefty $3,226 (which did not include such sundries as radio, power steering, or automatic transmission). It was not difficult to option a Challenger to a list price well above the $5,000 mark, which was beyond the means of many younger buyers — exactly the kind Dodge expected to be interested in the Challenger.
Spoilers were just beginning to appear on sporty cars in 1970, driven by the need to homologate them for SCCA Trans Am and NASCAR competition. This 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T has a two-piece, T/A-style spoiler under the nose, which might work a little, and this tail spoiler, which probably does nothing but look sporty. Every little bit would help, though, since the E-body had an alarming amount of high-speed lift. Challenger T/A models had a different, duckbill spoiler like that of the Camaro Z/28.
AN AUDIENCE OF NONE
Sporty car buyers proved to be just as ambivalent about the E-body Challenger and Barracuda as the magazine reviewers. Plymouth Barracuda sales for 1970 were 55,499, an improvement over ’69, but hardly impressive for an all-new model. The Dodge Challenger did better, selling more than 80,000 units in 1970, but many of those sales appear to have been at the expense of the bigger Dodge Charger, whose 1970 sales dropped significantly. Astute buyers may have recognized that the Challenger was essentially a smaller, somewhat trimmer version of the Charger and opted for the new car over its three-year-old brother.
The inward slope of the roof is known as tumblehome, and the E-body Dodge Challenger has a lot of it, creating a pronounced wedge shape. The 1970 Challenger R/T is very low — a fraction under 51 inches (1,290 mm) — and exceedingly wide, stretching 76.1 inches (1,933 mm) overall. The impression of bulk is not misleading; a well-optioned 440 Challenger weighs over 3,800 pounds (1,730 kg). The ‘floating’ tail lamps echo the design of the 1967–1969 Plymouth Barracuda. The Dodge name in the backup lights caused concern that it might not pass state lighting regulations. Note the rectangular exhaust pipes, echoing the angular styling theme, standard on all V8 cars with dual exhausts.
As if to add insult to injury, the disappointing debut of the E-body Challenger and Barracuda coincided with a dramatic surge in the popularity of the A-body Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart — particularly the new Plymouth Valiant Duster, a hastily contrived fastback version of the familiar A-body compact. Chrysler almost couldn’t give away the original fastback Barracuda, but the conceptually similar Duster outsold the muscular new Barracuda by more than four to one. In fact, sales of the 1970 Duster exceeded the combined sales of the Barracuda and Challenger by a significant margin.
According to Burt Bouwkamp, Dodge’s director of product planning during this period, the E-body program lost so much money that just seeing an E-body was enough to make Chrysler president John Riccardo lose his temper. Something had clearly gone awry.
MORE AND LESS
When the E-bodies were conceived in 1967, Dodge and Plymouth had evaluated the then current sporty-car market and unloaded both barrels at that target. The E-body Challenger and Barracuda had the most power, the most options, and arguably the most aggressive looks of any pony car. Unfortunately, in the three years or so between conception and execution, the target had moved. Sales of both pony cars and intermediate Supercars were dying on the vine by 1970 as buyers turned their attention to compacts like the Valiant or Ford Maverick or to imports like the Datsun 510.
The problem was that most of the pony cars — not just Chrysler’s — had drifted too far from original parameters of the genre. Buyers had liked the size of the 1965 Mustang, which was big enough to be passably practical, but not so big as to be unwieldy; it could still pass muster as an only car for a single person or young family. As is Detroit’s wont, the pony cars had gotten bigger and more expensive while simultaneously becoming less practical. More performance options had been added, but that wasn’t a big draw to most pony car buyers, who were generally content with a basic V-8. Aside from concerns about fuel economy, the industry industry was doing its level best to make high-performance models unaffordable by levying prohibitive surcharges that could inflate a young buyer’s annual premiums to more than a third of the car’s original purchase price. If you didn’t want or couldn’t afford a big engine, you were better off with a V-8 compact like the Chevrolet Nova or the aforementioned Valiant Duster.
Ironically, both the E-body Challenger and Barracuda are far more popular now than they ever were when they were new. Their mediocre sales and the bewildering number of permutations mean that certain desirable combinations are very rare, making them prime collector’s items. Barracudas and Challengers have become as iconic as dinosaurs, and for essentially the same reasons: They were big, ponderous, over-muscled, and possessed of voracious appetites their environment could no longer support.
Years later, Chrysler finally took advantage of that nostalgic popularity by launching a new Dodge Challenger, which debuted as a mid-year 2008 model. Like the contemporary Ford Mustang, the noveau Challenger studiously recycles the styling cues of the original; if the new Challenger doesn’t look exactly like its 1970 predecessor, the resemblance is nonetheless immediately apparent. Like the original, it’s based on the Charger, riding a shortened version of the Chrysler LX platform, which makes the Challenger more than 300 pounds (136 kg) heavier than even a 1970 Hemi Challenger and contributes to dismal EPA fuel economy estimates.
Despite that, despite high list prices that can easily top $40,000, and despite arriving at a time when Mustang sales were eroding and fuel prices were climbing, the new Dodge Challenger has done reasonably well. [Author’s note: It’s now survived seven model years.] The pony car market is now obviously very different than it was in late sixties and early seventies — our unscientific observation suggests that buyers tend to be affluent Gen Xers in the throes of mid-life crisis and aging Baby Boomers who wanted but couldn’t afford the originals — but if we accept the current Challenger as a conscious extension of the original, it appears that only now, 40 years later, has that formula’s time finally come.
NOTES ON SOURCES
Our sources for this article included the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, Encyclopedia of American Cars: Over 65 Years of Automotive History (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International, 1996); Arch Brown, “1970 ‘Cuda Six-Pack: Plymouth’s Prancing Pony,” Special Interest Autos #98 (March-April 1987), reprinted in The Hemmings Motor News Book of Chrysler Performance Cars: driveReports from Special Interest Autos magazine, eds. Terry Ehrich and Richard A. Lentinello (Bennington, VT: Hemmings Motor News, 2000), pp. 108-115, and “Pony Car or Race Horse? 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T – T/A,” Special Interest Autos #134 (March-April 1993), reprinted in ibid, pp. 116-123; John Gunnell, ed., Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975, rev. 4th ed. (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2002); Randy Leffingwell, American Muscle: Muscle Cars From the Otis Chandler Collection, Second Edition (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 1993); David Newhardt, Dodge Challenger & Plymouth Barracuda (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International, 2000); “Pontiac Firebird & Chevrolet Camaro: The First Generation of Grand Touring Cars,” Car and Driver March 1970, reprinted in Car and Driver on Pontiac 1961-1975, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1985), pp. 68-69; Curtis Redgap, “Challenger for 2008: On time or two late? (Chrysler in the muscle car era),” Allpar.com, 2006, www.allpar. com, accessed 28 September 2008; Ray Thursby, “Horse Power: The Ponycars of 1970,” Collectible Automobile Vol. 20, No. 2 (August 2003), pp. 8–23; David Zatz, “Interview with Burton Bouwkamp, Chrysler Corporation,” Allpar, 2006, www.allpar. com, accessed 29 December 2007; and Paul Zazarine, Barracuda and Challenger (Muscle Car Color History) (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks, International, 1991). Another contemporary impression of the Barracuda’s styling came from “70½ GM Sports Spectacular: Firebird/Camaro,” Motor Trend January 1970, pp. 28-30.
We also consulted the following period road tests: “Dodge Challenger 440 Magnum (SCG Road Test),” Sports Car Graphic November 1969; “Dodge Challenger R/T Hemi: Lavish execution with little or no thought toward practical application,” Car and Driver November 1969; and “Dodge Challenger 6-Pack: Dodge delivers Muscle in a surprising package,” Road Test March 1970, all of which are reprinted in Dodge Muscle Cars 1967-1970, ed. R.M. Clarke (Brooklands Books) (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1984); “Hemi is Here to Go: We stuff one into a Challenger to show you,” Road Test June 1970, reprinted in Dodge Muscle Portfolio 1964-1971, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 2003). (The latter volume also reprints the November 1969 Sports Car Graphic test.) Also compared were A.B. Shuman, “Road testing the 340, 440-6, and Hemi ‘Cudas: Isn’t there an easier way to earn my Canadian Club?” Motor Trend May 1970, reprinted in Plymouth Muscle Portfolio 1964-1971, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 2003).
I have been researching to see if I could find what the true front to rear weight distribution % on a big block 1970 Dodge Challenger. Reilly Motorsports who markets a bolt in replacement front suspension has told me that from the factory these cars were 48/52% The reason I am curious is because I am building a Pro Touring car and can tunnel the firewall and move the motor rearward to improve the balance. here could I find factual information on the stock weight distribution? Thanks
48/52? No way. Even with a 318, the E-bodies are nose-heavy, and with a Hemi, it’s got the distribution of a sledgehammer.
I’ve found three period weight figures for Challenger: (a) [b]Sports Car Graphic[/b]’s 1970 Challenger 440-4V weighed 3,820 lb (with TorqueFlite, power steering, power brakes, power windows, and possibly air conditioning — the text is vague on that — but drum brakes), with a static weight distribution of 56.6/43.4; (b) [b]Car & Driver[/b]’s Hemi Challenger is quoted at 3,890 lb with a 58.9/41.1 weight distribution; (c) [b]Road Test[/b]’s Challenger R/T SE with the 440 Six Pack (p/s, p/b, no air), which weighed 3,665 lb, with no quoted distribution. Add to the mix [b]SCG[/b]’s 1970 AAR ‘Cuda (340-6V, 4-speed), at 3,515 lb, 57/43. The Challenger was a little heavier than a comparable Barracuda, but its longer wheelbase aids weight distribution a bit.
Quoted weights from that period are not necessarily trustworthy, because some testers (especially [b]Motor Trend[/b]) didn’t always weigh their cars; manufacturer curb weights of that era aren’t very accurate, either, because they don’t usually reflect optional equipment. Still, the above sound pretty much accurate; a small-block E-body weighs 3,500-3,600 pounds in typical street trim, the 383 or 440 adds around 100 lbs onto that, and the Hemi a further 150-odd pounds.
Even stripped for racing, I wouldn’t expect better than 54/46 for a 383 or 440, 55/45 for an iron Hemi. (The Hemi is a monster; I think its dry weight is around 760 pounds.) You might do a little better with a fiberglass hood, lightweight headers, aluminum manifold, etc.
If you’re going to go to the trouble of tunneling the firewall, it seems like it would be worth it to take the car in its current form to a builder or tuner with proper racing scales to get an accurate actual weight distribution. They would probably be able to predict the effects of moving the engine, as well. My understanding is that that kind of service runs between $75 and $150, but it’s valuable information.
how many 1973 340 ralye challengers were built, with the 340 motor, and the 727 auto in top banana or yellow
Books by Galen Govier will be your best source……….from what I can glean ~6600 1973 E-Bodies with the 340 cid engine were made.
Sorry, that is ~6600 Plymouth E-Bodies in 1973 with 340 cid.
That is a man after my own heart; his comments on weight & weight distribution for that era are spot on! Bravo!
Now that the new run of the Challenger seems poised to outlast its 1970s counterpart, what are your thoughts on what Chrysler has done with it since 2008? Do you think anything has changed since your original assessment?
Thanks and great article!
Lousy article and absolutely no understanding of the time or what a muscle car.
I’ve had several Challengers (including two of the new kind), tons of other Mopars and feel this article does a pretty good job of summing up the mistakes made during the launch of the E-bodies.
You can’t deny they came out just as the era was ending, or that they were larger than the target “pony cars”. There should probably be a sidebar that does into the T/A and AAR models, because those did address the handling issues to a large extent.
If Chrysler had based these high-style cars on the A-body vs. B-body,(something like the Aussies did a few years later) they probably would have survived into a second generation.
It’s certainly true that the E-bodies’ specific performance limitations could mostly be addressed with the right combination of options. (The T/A and AAR cars were not exactly commonplace or cheap, although as I recall, most of their functional components — except the 340-6V engine — could be ordered separately.) On the other hand, I think handling limitations were well down the list of the E-bodies’ marketing problems. The previous A-body Barracuda was probably the best-handling of the pony cars and (at least in Formula S form) one of the best of contemporary American cars, which didn’t do its sales any favors. The major issue was just that the E-bodies were bulky enough and expensive enough to not be a great deal for the buyer just looking for a sporty compact hardtop with a base V-8 and basic options; unfortunately, that was a big swath of the pony car market. Chrysler of course did also have a sporty A-body in the form of the Duster/Demon/Dart Sport, and it seems a lot of customers bought those instead.
It’s interesting to speculate what would have happened had Chrysler offered BOTH scaled-down, A-body-based pony cars AND the Duster/Demon. The latter weren’t aimed at the pony car market, of course, so it’s not an entirely improbable idea. The pony cars would probably still been more expensive, so one has to wonder if buyers would have been sufficiently drawn by the styling to pay an extra, say, $200 for them or if customers would still have shrugged and bought Dusters instead. Chevrolet doesn’t seem to have lost many Camaro sales to the mechanically similar Nova coupe, but Chrysler in this era had an unfortunate talent for tripping over its own shoelaces when it came to marketing and product planning.
As always, I really enjoyed this article. The only thing I noticed is you stated the T/A was rated at 275 hp instead of 290. The T/A’s wore the “six pack” manifold (6 barrel on Plymouths) and had a slightly different head design. They were rated 15 hp higher than the standard 4 barrel carbs.
Hmm — there are a couple of odd typos in that section (including not one but two sentence fragments that I’ve now fixed), but it did say the 340 “offered 275 gross horsepower (205 kW), 290 hp (216 kW) in the limited-production Challenger T/A.” Are we looking at different sections of the text?
Hmm, there must have been something wrong on my end as it certainly says it now. My apologies for doubting you, keep up the great work!
I did go in a little while ago to take out the sentence fragment at the end of the previous paragraph and to fix the construction of that sentence (which had an “either” without an “or”). I was just worried I was not responding to the right part of the text — occasionally, I’ll fix something in the main body and not a photo caption or something like that.
Reading this in January 2020, it’s interesting that the revived Challenger continues to sell strongly despite the fact it has not had a major update since 2008. In fact, it is selling better in the last five years than it did in its first seven (2008 to 2014). The last couple of years, it has outsold the Camaro (no doubt assisted by an poorly-received mid-cycle facelift for the Chevy) and is more recently challenging Mustang for lead in the segment.
I wonder if the relative failure of the early ’70s E-bodies helps the image Challenger holds today. Say “Dodge Challenger” and the only associations that spring in a potential car buyer’s mind are of the highly desired collector cars they see crossing the block on TV auctions. By comparison, while there have been as many great Mustangs and Camaros through the years, there have also been countless mundane versions sold in the intervening years to water down the image. No one thinks of slant six base Challengers because they are now rarer sights than Hemis or T/As.
On the other hand, such is the state of the market for sporty coupes that none of these models sell as many annually as the Challenger did in 1970.
That’s a really interesting point, and I think you might be right. Also, the recent Mustang and Camaro have tried, for better or worse, to be modern, where the Challenger just looks like a resto-mod E-body. In that respect, the current Challenger is arguably what the average person who’s smitten with a cool old car in a movie or music video really wants: It has the look and swagger of the old one, but with modern technology, modern safety features, and a new car warranty. Judging by the numbers, this is still a niche market these days, but Chrysler (or now FCA) judged better than I expected back in 2008.
The Challenger is the best Camaro ever (bigger! wider!! road hugging weight!!!) but seriously, I really liked them even though I only ever owned a very used & rusty 1974 with a 318.
Car sales are often more affected by economic factors than any of the actual qualities of the product. Recall Edsel’s failure and Rambler’s sales boost in the 1958 recession. A good product in bad times can be doomed regardless of its virtues. Introducing the Challenger in 1970 is the key factor. Compare any brand muscle car’s 1969 to 1970 sales, you will find a 50% drop.
In this case, performance car insurance rates doubled in 1970 – effectively raising cost of ownership too high for the target audience. After 1974, GM’s F-bodies barely survived due to less power (more reasonable insurance rate) and loss of domestic rivals (MoPar E-body gone, Javelin gone, Cougar = Torino, Mustang = Pinto glandular case) creating a last-man-standing scenario rather than survival-of-the fittest.
Well, yes, but the E-body Challenger had the dual misfortune of not being a great car on its own terms as well as arriving at the wrong time. If it had magically arrived for 1967, I don’t think it would have sold much better than it did. It had muscular styling and the availability of the hot Mopar engines, but the volume business in pony cars wasn’t big-block muscle, it was sixes and base V-8s in sporty commuter cars, and the E-body was pretty inept for that kind of duty — big, cumbersome, kind of clumsy, not particularly well-assembled — and you had to go up several steps on the engine list to get decent performance, whereas even a Camaro with the 250 six and three-speed was reasonably spry and much less costly to run. Chrysler in this era just never seemed to grasp the basics of the pony car class, and it hurt them again and again.
Of course, Ford, which invented the genre, also lost the plot in similar ways at about the same time Chrysler was preparing to miss the point yet again, although they retrenched fairly quickly and they sold so many Mustangs of the early generations that even when the bottom started falling out, they were still doing better than Chrysler had on their best days. The Mustang II was not a great car, but it was a reasonable enough product concept and it benefited from fortuitous timing; arguably, its greatest shortcoming was that the conceptually similar Capri did the same thing better.
I’m not convinced that either the Javelin/AMX or Cougar was ever enough of a direct competitor to the F-bodies to make their exit that significant in terms of the F-bodies’ commercial prospects. In the ’80s and ’90s, the fact that the F-bodies and the Mustang were the last of their kind helped to keep them viable, but in the ’70s, I don’t really think that was a big factor in the F-bodies’ mid-decade rally. As dismal as the seventies were for automotive performance, there was a pretty robust market for stylish personal cars, and the F-bodies were certainly that, even with smaller engines.