Car Audio Central - Ultimate Car Audio Forum and Community

by **GlassWolf** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 7:30 am

which is why my street car has a 440 magnum as the basis for it's build. more displacement, more stroke, lower power band. not really any heavier though since it's essentially the exact same block as a 383. Anyway between the mythical hemi name and the more is better mentality of the uneducated in regards to car engines, its not surprising that Jeep is milking the hemi for sales in the JGC now. 330hp is quite a bit for an SUV, but it is still an SUV, and not a sportscar.

by **Jonathan** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:30 pm

Low end torque = Magnum :) It's all in marketing, I guess. Even the Grand Cherokee gets a Hemi over the tried and true 4.0L. I love my V-8s, but it's hard to beat a good I-6 for all around torque and reliability, and the 4.0L was perfect for a Jeep.
I agree with you about the Hemi, The 440 IMO was a better street motor.

by **GlassWolf** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:08 pm

gotta remember that a true hemispherical head design like the old 426 "strip" hemi isn't a low end torque type of design anyway. It produces a hell of a lot of power and torque but its mostly in the upper bands which is ideal for it's original design. Drag racing.
Not ideal for a street car really.
the 426 had a peak horsepower at 5500RPM and a peak torque band at 4000RPM.

by **Jonathan** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:16 pm

The thing that gets me is it isn't even a true Hemi. It very closely resembles the "semi-hemi" head that Ford used the the late 1960s 429 engine family. I saw a comparison picture of the Old Ford head and the New Hemi head, they're almost twins in the aspect of combustion chamber shape and valve layout.

by **MobileAudio219** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 2:48 pm

I pretty much agree with everyone else, its ugly... And I'm not even going to go into how crappy their trannys are, or how the new hemi sucks...

by **GlassWolf** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:35 am

very true, and like the 66 charger, which was Dodge's main platform of the year (the coronet/charger) the Intrepid was the 90s flagship platform they based the other products on. similar target markets as well, spanning the years.
Jon's got a good point there, The intrepid has a similar design as well with the short hood and long fastback sort of look with the huge interior space. Mind you that's in relation to the 66/67 charger. the 68+ got smaller, more like the cuda/challenger etc.

Anyway glad ya made it over, Jon. Good to see ya here.

by **Jonathan** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 6:09 pm

The overall shape of that car replicates an early Mustang more so than the older Charger. The rear fenderwells, headlights and grill, front end, all look like a 65 mustang gone all wrong. Just like Chevrolet destroyed the Impala name. Dodge is getting too squared off and chunky with their car designs. Just because the truck design was popular doesn't mean you need to make every car look like a Mack truck. The car I liked most from Dodge in the past few years was the Intrepid, that platform would make a better base for a Charger concept because of it's smooth lines and long design.

by **ridr4lif** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:15 pm

i agree with justin from detroit...im not a big fan of the whole dodge lineup. They make everything look the same.
TEDD

by **Justin from Detroit1** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 11:20 am

The whole Dodge/Chrysler family is still ugly as hell.

by **71buickfreak** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:09 am

there is supposed to be a new cuda coming out retro style like the mustang. and the new camaro/firebird will be the same way. really slick from what I have seen

Car Audio Central - Ultimate Car Audio Forum and Community

the new dodge charger

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: the new dodge charger