Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Always thought the new Dodge Charger was one wicked looking car, until... My wife bought a Chrysler Crossfire, put it in the shop and got a Charger for a loaner. I was really happy until I drove it. What a dog! Couldn't break traction in an oil field. Got crappy mileage. The window control broke through the console and couldn't get the windows down again. Not very comfortable, either. Should'a retired the "Charger" name in 1974. What a shame!
The 1973 and 1974 Chargers were ugly. They were longer than the 71 &72's and offered very little power but the 8 3/4 rear end gave it some guts. Even the 72's were more show and less go, probably the best 72 charger was the ralley package with the 340 magnum. The last real bad @@% Charger was the 1971. 73's and 74's more nothing more than a family car. The new Chargers follow suit since the 74's being more of a sedan and family car with just "regular" engines under the hood except the package deals. The Chargers were always meant to appeal to the family man just like the GTX. I think the new Chargers are attractive. The new Challenger will be in a class of its own. EW
Always thought the new Dodge Charger was one wicked looking car, until... My wife bought a Chrysler Crossfire, put it in the shop and got a Charger for a loaner. I was really happy until I drove it. What a dog! Couldn't break traction in an oil field. Got crappy mileage. The window control broke through the console and couldn't get the windows down again. Not very comfortable, either. Should'a retired the "Charger" name in 1974. What a shame!
Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like poor craftsmanship...I'm gonna go test drive the larger V-6 this weekend and see what it's about. I might be dissapointed as usually is the case with american cars. The quality of the plastics is usually cheap.
The 1973 and 1974 Chargers were ugly. They were longer than the 71 &72's and offered very little power but the 8 3/4 rear end gave it some guts. Even the 72's were more show and less go, probably the best 72 charger was the ralley package with the 340 magnum. The last real bad @@% Charger was the 1971. 73's and 74's more nothing more than a family car. The new Chargers follow suit since the 74's being more of a sedan and family car with just "regular" engines under the hood except the package deals. The Chargers were always meant to appeal to the family man just like the GTX. I think the new Chargers are attractive. The new Challenger will be in a class of its own. EW
Actually; the 1972-74 Chargers/Road Runners with the 440 Magnum engine were still 14 second 1/4 mile cars.
Actually; the 1972-74 Chargers/Road Runners with the 440 Magnum engine were still 14 second 1/4 mile cars.
I'm not sure how, because the 440 went from 375hp in 1971 to 280hp in 72 &73 then 275hp in 1974. This is Chrysler's data on broadcast sheets. Its possibly that with a 4 speed or a different gear ratio that they could be the same. But there is a huge difference between the 440 prior to 71 and the 440 after 1971. Ew
JMO I wouldn't own anything newer than a 1973-74 Charger, albeit being underpowered.
I have to agree. I use to have a "74" Charger with a 318 under the hood and a possi-trac under the tail. And it was probably the best car I have ever own. I was clocked by a Ohio HP at 140mph, and still had some peddle left. Thank God the Ohio HP was a friend of the family, he was just curious of what she was able too do.
I'm not sure how, because the 440 went from 375hp in 1971 to 280hp in 72 &73 then 275hp in 1974. This is Chrysler's data on broadcast sheets. Its possibly that with a 4 speed or a different gear ratio that they could be the same. But there is a huge difference between the 440 prior to 71 and the 440 after 1971. Ew
Unless I'm mistaken, I think there was a change in the way Horsepower was being reported at that time.
Previously, HP was measured at the end of the Crankshaft and then it was changed to measure the HP where the rubber hits the road, thereby taking into account the entire drive-train including the transmission and differential.
I'm not sure how, because the 440 went from 375hp in 1971 to 280hp in 72 &73 then 275hp in 1974. This is Chrysler's data on broadcast sheets. Its possibly that with a 4 speed or a different gear ratio that they could be the same. But there is a huge difference between the 440 prior to 71 and the 440 after 1971. Ew
In 1972, they changed the way they rated horsepower from gross (no accessories on engine) to net (accessories on engine), however between 1971 and 1972 the horsepower ratings didn't really drop as much as most think, it just looked that way on paper.
Unless I'm mistaken, I think there was a change in the way Horsepower was being reported at that time.
Previously, HP was measured at the end of the Crankshaft and then it was changed to measure the HP where the rubber hits the road, thereby taking into account the entire drive-train including the transmission and differential.
That maybe true but the engines were still down graded in HP. They did this because of new emission laws at the time. They lowered the compression ratio and used a different cam. After 71 I believe the 440 high performance engines were also gone. I knew this because when my buddy rebuilt a 440 from 1973 (the older engines were already hard to find in the 1980's) he had to get a new crank and cam to get the HP of the older engines. He got his information right from Chrysler. The only way the cars from different years could have ran the same time depends on the transmission and the rear end. EW
In 1972, they changed the way they rated horsepower from gross (no accessories on engine) to net (accessories on engine), however between 1971 and 1972 the horsepower ratings didn't really drop as much as most think, it just looked that way on paper.
Do you really think a drop of 375 in 1971 to 275 in 1974 would come from accessories? Even on paper it wouldn't be that much. EW
Do you really think a drop of 375 in 1971 to 275 in 1974 would come from accessories? Even on paper it wouldn't be that much. EW
No I don't think just the accessories themselves would cause that much of a drop, there was also a reduction of the compression ratio and in some cases the elimination of solid lifter camshafts.
But also it was because insurance companies were starting to nickel and dime to death anyone who wanted to own a high powered car, so naturally the auto manufacturers began to "under rate" their engines. Probably in hopes of keeping the sales going without the would-be new car buyers having to worry about insurance costs.
Also of note according to Mopar Chrysler Engine Specifications - MyMopar.com, it looks as if the smallest 440 was rated at 15 hp less and .7 less c.r. in '71 as opposed to '70, while the others two 440's show being the same c.r. and 5 hp less in '71 than '70.
Looks like Chrysler held on to high performance for 1 more year while GM already started detuning their engines for the '71 model year....perhaps Chrysler didn't really start detuning their engines until '72, plus the new change to net hp....which could perhaps result in the huge drop?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yep !
