Why?

I must admit I looked at the picture and thought someone with no taste whatsoever had taken a gorgeous Charger and stuck on bits to make it look not even remotely like a Ferrari Daytona, but definitely very, very ugly.

Glad to see this is function over form...

they handle hideously. dont know about *that* particular model but brakes are known to be cack too,

In news:41b95150$0$29743$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net, Mason decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

I suspect the brakes will still be cack on it.

Handle ok though, otherwise they'd never manage a 200 mph lap.

Probably a pig on the road, but I'd still like one.

Or driving it in the wet/snow/ice etc.

Becuase it is factory, rare, fast as f*ck and totally over the top.

It depends on the definition of handle, they can go very fast ad turn left a bit. For an American car that's excellent handling.

hehe, true! :) it must be quite stable tho.

Wet is very different from snow/ice... I can't image a charger having anything over the turbo in terms of handleing in those conditions unless it was the 4wd mk5 escort RS cosworth turbo. I suppose with the rwd you can feel the rear end twitch and re-align the sucker quicker but then again the charger prolly weighs twice as much and there for harder to control in a slide.

In news:cpc48b$275$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk, REMUS decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

as I said earlier, it's all about delivery in the sense that a big 7 litre lump will have oodles and oodles of lovely delicious torque everywhere even when in a decent state of tune. A piddling little 1.6 Escrot Turdo does f*ck all, then a bit at 2500-5000, then dies again. Which means in order to go almost semi quickly you have to kick the living shit out of it. While the Charger could annihilate most things without changing down from 4th.

As for handling in the wet etc, it'd be a lot easier to control a 7 litre, fire breathing Dodge and still go reasonably quickly just by lobbing it in fourth and using the torque to surf about on.

The Dodge, or indeed anything with a decent sized petrol engine will provide driveability in bucketfuls. The kind of torque turbo diesel owners dream of.

Well I was talking about ice and snow not wet roads not wet.

Worth remembering that handling isn't about how fast you can corner, and this is a big old sixties car. Dukes of Hazzard reruns show how they can be controlled sideways easily enough.

But 350 horses at the rear wheels and more torque than you can fit in an oil tanker does make things interesting unless you know how to drive this sort of car, I suspect.

I think it has more to do with sloppy yank suspension that leads to alot of instability. And yeah I think you need to regually visit a gym to drive one them...

I dunno, to be honest. The Mustang was a very popular car and combined a beautiful body with a stonking v8 engine for a budget price. But they had a very poor suspension setup and similar so they would go pretty fast in a straight line but would have their bottom spanked by a 2CV on any sort of twisty road.

Similar with the TransAm, there were quite a few yank cars that didn't handle well, were very hard to get to go around corners, etc. Far worse than the european cars of the time. Iconic example, say, the Cadillac Eldorado if that was the whale version. It was bigger than the Titanic, and had a larger turning circle. And American racing is all about oval tracks, banked so gravity does most of the steering for you. These sorts of cars created an impression of what it means to be an american car.

Was it justified? Certainly some of it is. Never driven a Charger so I dunno, but I would expect overly-assisted power steering, and would imagine you steer it around by watching the front part go offline and use plenty of turning to and fro to plan ahead. For sure, you would be using the back end to slide out, point, and go, then steer the way you intended whatever the car was doing. I doubt I would get bored quickly.