Jump to content

Talk:Dodge Challenger

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Previously unsectioned comments

[edit]

Added information regarding front grille changes and variation of bumperettes (including a picture). Also added a small blurb regarding the increased demand from collectors. -Vhostok

is the copyright on the challenger concept picture ok? Tomservo3000 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited this as I don't know how to start a new post.

In Vanishing Point, Kowalski when getting his speed, says that it is "hopped up with a 106" or something similar. Also later in the film, the cop radio said it may be supercharged. Does that mean that it is a 440 magnum with a blower? Geoff— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.230.104 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a Yellow Challenger in Don Johnson's TV series with Cheech Marin?

[edit]

I don't recall the name of the series but I am pretty certain that Don Johnson drove a Yellow with white interior Challenger convertable. It may have been a baracuda.

It is a '71 Barracuda. The show is "Nash Bridges" Akloki 12:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki[reply]

The Cuda is a Plymouth, though sharing the platform with the Challenger it has a different body and a shorter wheelbase.

Cleanup

[edit]

This article needs a bit of cleanup. Mostly getting rid of the blank space. 67.188.172.165 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did some cleanup. I also added quite a bit of technical information. I moved the third generation pic and info to the third generation title line. It is (in my opinion, and i own a '70) the best looking Challenger so far, but should not be the first picture on the page.

Akloki 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki[reply]

no it is a challenger and yes the show is nash bridges —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.236.187 (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! it is most definitely a Cuda. Akloki (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)AklokiAkloki (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there were two cars. Both were Cudas. One had a 340 and an automatic; that's the one used in the close up driving shots around San Franciso. The second was the "stuntman" vehicle and had a Hemi with a 4-speed. All of the driving shots where you couldn't see Johnson's or Marin's faces were done with the Hemi.

I know this because when I was working in Emeryville between 1994-1997, they filmed an episode at my building. I was talking to the crew about the cars and got a good look at them.TooMuchTime (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Performance

[edit]

These acceleraion figures seem to be out to lunch, the hemi and 440 challengers were at best high 13 second cars in the quarter mile based on most road tests of the day, where did these times come from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girvanayrshire (talk • contribs) 22:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

third generation

[edit]

The third generation car has not been produced! A non existant prototype should not be the headline picture for the Challenger! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akloki (talk • contribs) 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree, so I changed the main picture to the picture of the 1970 Challenger. Why should we completely ignore more than a dozen years of production just for a brand new model? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.246.198 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus Capital Management and production of the new Dodge Challenger

[edit]

I have heard from various sources that Cerberus Capital Management (the company that recently purchased Chrysler from DaimlerChrysler), is hell bent on scaling back the production of the new Challenger.

It seems that the new Challenger will be manufactured as a low-production "niche" car, and the few that will be produced will be snapped up by people willing to pay a hefty premium for them.

1971 Dodge Challenger

[edit]

shouldnt there be a picture or two up of the 71 challenger acknowleging the notable changes from the 70 model and more discription on how many differences it had for that one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.19.206 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the 71 challenger is probably the most sought after challenger of them all ... because of all the changles ... grill, lights, from light frames, bumper, rear quarter panel scoops/spoilers, door mirrors ... small yet picture worthy changes ... lol

The new Challenger was supposed to be made available to "the people", not just to the rich! 24.168.42.182 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Film appearances

[edit]

TV appearances

[edit]

Music videos

[edit]

Video Games

[edit]
Trivia good for Talk LanceBarber (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power ratings for the new Challenger....

[edit]

I have yet to see any power ratings of the new Challenger on here. There has been a few different numbers flying around as far as the ratings of the various engines, with the 6.1 being the only one people can agree on. I believe the 3.5 is rated at 250hp (according to Dodge.ca), but I've seen Dodge promo pamphlets with 253hp, and some people are saying 255hp. That being said, brochures, and even Dodge's websites (dodge.com & dodge.ca) vary. On the US site, the 5.7L is rated at 370hp, while in Canada, it's rating is 372hp, and they mention an optional "Trak Pak" on 6spd R/T, which sees hp go up to 376. Nothing of this sort is mentioned on the US site as of yet. Are these numbers mistakes, or do the US/CAN spec cars truly differ? I am in the know, and even I don't know. Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 06:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear

[edit]

The dodge team would not lend them this car at the last minute in episode 12-1 and Richard Hammond had to buy it so they could test it.

added a few things

[edit]

I revised the horsepower rating for R/T 6spd from 375 to 376 (as per the official Dodge rating), and added a note about the "Track Pak" option group. I have yet to go over all the other performance numbers to make sure they're correct. At first glance, if some are not the same as the factory ratings, they're close...I will try to find the time to verify them though. The only problem is with the Track Pak ratio with the 20 inch wheels. Even Mopar literature contradicts itself (for various reasons) citing the ratio to be both 3.91 & 3.92. The actual ratio is believed to be 3.92, as this ratio can be found in other Mopar applications. Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engines

[edit]

Someone should add the 6.1 liter engine and performance specs with pricing adjustments. And, the manual may have performance alterations with the 5 speed auto versus manual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottfiab (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and Fuel Consumption

[edit]

I looked for this information, but cannot find the weight or the fuel requirements per mile or per kilometre, miles per gallon would be fine as well. I suspect its probarbly a heavy thing consuming way too much fuel for its size and accelleration and top speed due to its weight, so this is a reason for chrysler not to disclose this information to everyone and to keep it out of marketing, but it should be in the wikipedia article if the information can be found somewhere. 79.230.49.121 (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find fuel consumption for any automobile sold in the United States (starting from the 1984 model year) at the U.S. Department of Energy web pages: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Specific data such as features, fuel efficiency, options, dimensions, capacities, weights, etc., for a particular model such as the Dodge Challenger can be found on the manufacturer's web pages, such as here: http://www.dodge.com/hostc/vsmc/vehicleSpecModels.do?modelYearCode=CUD201003
Wikipedia does not replicate the detailed information that can be found easily. I hope that helps! CZmarlin (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone Do It?

[edit]

Can someone please try to get a good picture of the Challenger SXT? I want to actually see it!SRT8 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)SRT8 {{help}}[reply]

It's basically the same as the SE with the G package in the U.S. so it looks the same. Dodge Challenger SRT (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pics of Challengers that are not factory standard.

[edit]

I feel the pic at the top of the page should be changed. The blue SE there is not a good representation of a factory model, since it has the "Heritage" wheels from the R/T Classic. I see IFCAR claims it was sold by the dealer that way, but it certainly didn't leave the factory that way, and you can't order one that way. If it's not a pic of a Challenger as it comes from the factory, why not a wide-body convertible with Lambo doors <- sarcasm. Seriously, it should be as it comes from the factory, not one that's been modified, by the owner or the dealer. Can I get a consensus, or agreement on this? Dodge Challenger SRT (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Now there is an SE with the R/T Classic's "Heritage" wheels in the SE section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_Challenger#SE Could we get a consensus that pics should be as the exist when they leave the factory? It causes confusion when people see the cheap base model V6 with wheels from the high-end mid-model R/T Classic. 71.238.126.78 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Dodge Challenger SRT8 Pictures

[edit]

We have a need to upload some pictures of the new (2011) Dodge Challenger SRT-8, which does not contain a Dodge badge on the hood. 188.249.95.43 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving of the Challenger's third gen to a special page.

[edit]

Like the Dodge Dart, which has an original page and a new page, should this be applicable too, as the cars are 30 years apart. Just wondering, or do they share the similar pony car nature which allows them to stay together? Be peaceful. Be a Dalai Lama. (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. The original Beetle has a separate page from newer VW models using the same name as well. IMO, the new Challenger has nothing in common with the original and considering the large gap in time between when the original version ended production and the new version began production, I would suggest a separate page. Expandinglight5 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Objection! The overall characteristics of the Challenger haven't changed that much. It's different with the Beetle, originally a rear-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout the New Beetle is just a Rabbit with a different body, it shouldn't even have its own page.

Models, first generation

[edit]

"Four hardtop models were offered: Challenger Six, Challenger V8, Challenger T/A (1970 only), and Challenger R/T with a convertible version available only in 1970 and 1971." This seems completely made up. There was no such thing as a Challenger Six or V8. As far as I know 1970 models were: Challenger Deputy (introduced mid year), Challenger, R/T and T/A. I have to find some sources. Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing and you are correct as to the some of the model designations. Moreover, there was a lot of shuffling of model names and the standard equipment on them during the first generation. Will attempt to describe them a little better. CZmarlin (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Am Series

[edit]

I've heard that the Challengers used the 303 in Trans Am, not the 340. AmericanLeMans (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The SCCA required a small block engine with a displacement of 305 or less cubic inches. Both the AAR Cuda and Challenger T/A used a 303.8 Chrysler "A" engine which was a de-stroked 340-ci small block. In race trim, these engines developed more than 460 hp and turned over 8,000 rpm. ````<Challenger & Cuda Mopar's E-Body Muscle Cars></page 86> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Classic Racer 56 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Car Brochures.org not considered reliable?

[edit]

An editor cited facts on the 2gen Challenger and noted a website that contains scans of the cars original brochure from oldcarbrochures.org. Another editor tagged this information requesting a more reliable source. Why is this source considered unreliable? Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why the edit with the addition of the German mag test was reverted

[edit]

A while ago when I used the source to the 11.67sec/132mph 1/4-mile result instead of the claim, I was reverted and blocked for apparently vandalizing the page. Was there something really wrong that I did before? 2607:FB90:A449:BC5E:0:1A:43E0:4101 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the racing benifits?

[edit]

Just wondering whats the racing benefits? The body is aerodynamic but could be better. I like the look but it doesn't look designed for racing. Not judging cause this is my absolute fave. Car. Just sayin Ms.Challenger (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No R/T's after 1971 or T/A's after 1970?

[edit]

If the R/T was dropped after 1971, why do I see 1973 and 1974 Challenger R/T's in the gallery?

  • 1973 Challenger R/T
    1973 Challenger R/T
  • 1974 Challenger R/T
    1974 Challenger R/T

And while we're at it, how is there a 1972 T/A if they only existed in 1970?

  • This image doesn't show it as a T/A...
    This image doesn't show it as a T/A...
  • .. but this one does.
    .. but this one does.


Some explanation for this has to be available. I just created galleries for both. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge Challenger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile infobox issue

[edit]

Hi Wikipedians,

I used the mobile version of Wikipedia (the website, not app), and when the article is viewed, there seems to be an issue with the main paragraph and the infobox. The infobox always seems to be below the main paragraph.

This needs to be looked after and fixed.

Thanks.

Ecks Dey (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nurburgring Time

[edit]

This sentence is problematic:

In a comparison with the Mercedes-AMG GT R and an old Ferrari F50, the Hellcat completed the Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7:50.[1]

The citation given is highly questionable: I cannot find any reference to "Top Gear: Limited Edition - Glory of the Legends" outside of this Flickr album, and the official time for the AMG GT-R doesn't match what is claimed there.[2][3][4] In addition, the IP of the user who added it is blocked sitewide for rampant, long term vandalism. I am removing it until/unless a better reference can be provided.

If it's put back in, it needs to be restructured so that the time is put in context: right now, the comparison with the Mercedes and Ferrari vehicles' times is a throwaway that doesn't provide any comparison. -Athaler (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Glory Of The Legends". Top Gear. Retrieved 2016-10-08.
  2. ^ "Mercedes-AMG GT R im Test von sport auto Sportwagen mit Biturbo-V8 schneller als 918". Retrieved 2017-06-21.
  3. ^ "Mercedes-AMG GT R 7.10,92 min Nordschleife HOT LAP sport auto World's Exclusive First Test". Retrieved 2017-06-21.
  4. ^ "Mercedes-AMG GT R knackt sport auto-Rekord 7:11 Minuten auf der Nürburgring-Nordschleife". Retrieved 2017-06-21.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dodge Challenger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Gen Sales

[edit]

Do any of these numbers relate to each other? The math doesn't work, the running total doesn't work, doesn't agree with text above? I will fix it if any 1 thing is right to start with! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.91.80 (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second generation (1978–1983)

[edit]

@U1Quattro: The Galant Lambda/ Challenger/ Sapporo wiki page is thoroughly sourced for physical specifications. By restoring incorrect data, you have made a number of incorrect and unsourced claims. Please find a source proving that the entirely new body released in 1981 is nothing but a "facelift" when the body is all new from bumper to bumper, inside and out. Please provide a source for the existence of a "Challenger X". Please leave the improved photo alone. Furthermore, the so-called "second generation" of Challenger is actually two complete generations, 1978-1980 and 1981-1983.GalantFan (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off GalantFan, there was nothing wrong in the photo of the white Challenger. The photo you added was just of inferior quality. Second off, read here, here and here. No such thing as "first" and "second" generation Challengers of this generation as you describe. You see I did not add Challenger X in my recent edit so I don't know why you brought that up when I let it be. Until you find a source for your dubious claim, I'm going to revert the edits.U1 quattro TALK 18:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: Actually it's the white car that is inferior quality. While the black car is 100% stock condition, the white car is missing the Challenger badge on the side and has wheels that were only installed on the Plymouth. All Challengers were sold with the four spoke wheels. There is no reason to justify removing the photo of the more original condition black car. If two cars being 100% different from bumper to bumper, inside and out, doesn't make them different generations, I don't know what does. The 1981-83 cars are an inch taller, an inch wider, six inches longer, about 200 pounds heavier and even have a new suspension compared to the 1978-80 generation. Yes, I see a lot of articles on the internet referring to the GH and GJ chassis cars as being one generation despite sharing nothing but the engines and transmissions. The "third generation" Challenger is really the fourth. GalantFan (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know all those dimensions about the white car GalantFan? Does the white car belong to you? And if it's that inaccurate? Why don't you get a more accurate photo of the front as well?U1 quattro TALK 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the Mitsubishi Galant Lambda page for the massive generational differences. The white and black cars are both second generation of the "second generation" of the Challenger, so the measurements are the same, but the white car clearly isn't in showroom condition while the black car is. GalantFan (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@U1Quattro: See here for detailed photos of the first generation of the Mitsubishi Dodge Challenger. It was smaller in all dimensions. GalantFan (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The white car is a better photo, but the black car appears to be more original. I am not sure what should weigh heavier. As for generation 2 and 3, User:GalantFan has a point but WP:OR and all that. Find a decent source and we can change things. MMC really did their best in obscuring the effort that went into this update/rebodying. "Challenger X" is just the result (I think) of someone having stuck an "X" to the trunk of the Challenger I photographed.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wish the lighting was better, but clearly the car that looks like it just came off the showroom is the one that should be used as the example. The Mitsubishi Galant Lambda page is very well sourced and goes into a lot of detail. The "Second Generation" of the Challenger is actually two entirely unique chassis, the Mitsubishi GH platform from 78-80 and the GJ platform from 81-83. Only the engine and transmission are in common, even the suspension was redesigned. This article here is very detailed and already added to sources. But even Dodge themselves call the current car the "Third Generation" as if both Mitsubishi platforms were one generation. GalantFan (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a lot of claims GalantFan. I haven't seen Dodge call this Challenger third generation and any of that stuff.U1 quattro TALK 01:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trim level availability

[edit]

I noticed that the article erroneously states (or at the very least least implies) that the first widebody versions of the third generation Challenger were those released in the 2019 model year. the article cited at the widebody package section of the 2019 model year links to a motortrend article that discusses the new widebody versions of specifically the R/T Scat Pack and the Hellcat Redeye. so all that to say, Dodge released the first widebody version of the third generation Challenger as the Widebody Challenger Hellcat for the 2018 model year. I found this motortrend article, [1],dated June 27, 2017 to confirm. also I believe the "dual-snorkel hood" was debuted with the Widebody Hellcat for the 2019 model year as a change from the 2018, but I did not look for a source to confirm this. there are possibly other similar errors as far as when a certain style or trim of the car was initially released, so I thought it would be better to add a topic as opposed to finding a spot to fit this in the existing topics. to whomever makes this correction and any similar corrections to the article, I thank you.96.86.23.85 (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-dodge-challenger-srt-hellcat-widebody-is-a-demon-doppelganger/

Divide-unbundle the three generations page

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to split the article. TwinBoo (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to divide-unbundle page like as with French wiki and some many similar car as Charger or Corvette or Mustang, because the car presents significant differences with years '60 and '70 and 2000, like as for example the three generations have engine, chassis, traction, structural changes bodywork and mechanical different. 91.80.24.175 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the third generation should be split into Dodge Challenger (2008), similar to the Dodge Charger (2005) page. As for the second generation, I don't think it has enough content for its own page, so it should stay on the current page with the first generation, unless someone thinks it should be merged into Mitsubishi Galant Lambda. --Vossanova o< 14:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dodge_Challenger&oldid=1219736497"