Upcoming new Dodge TV ads

[Aspen500]

Have you seen this one yet? It's awesome! Got to give them credit for actually having the guts to put out commercials like this. Kind of a "take this EPA, government regulators, tree huggers and Prius drivers"! Funny thing is, you can't even buy a Hellcat Challenger or Charger anymore this year (like any of us could in the first place, lol) until the 2016's come out. They sold every single one they could physically build. Sounds like they're going to increase Hellcat engine production capabilities for the new model year.

https://youtu.be/jCxehjcYwlc

 

[Jack Meoff]

Sheer awesomeness.

 

[slant6billy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeiR7ksfGcI

I found my new dream job

 

[Jack Meoff]

That car is insane.
I want one.

 

[Yellowdart69]

I so want one of those. Too bad they don't throw in the empty roads.

 

[Jack Meoff]

I so want one of those. Too bad they don't throw in the empty roads.

We don't have those here.

 

[kkritsilas]

But please keep in mind, THESE ARE NOT MUSCLE CARS, even though they have all sorts of muscle under the hood. They can steer, stop, and don't beat you half to hell every time you drive them, you don't get a floaty feeling at over 100 mph, and you can still hear after driving them after a few hours.

 

[Jack Meoff]

But please keep in mind, THESE ARE NOT MUSCLE CARS, even though they have all sorts of muscle under the hood. They can steer, stop, and don't beat you half to hell every time you drive them, you don't get a floaty feeling at over 100 mph, and you can still hear after driving them after a few hours.

This is almost the other thread material but I'll say this.

Is this a muscle car?
Yes it's a muscle car but it's a new Gen muscle car.
The car will help.

I think the point that was made was with the original muscle cars it was raw (if you think an F or an M bone stock at 100mph is scary try it in the Titanic with still way more than that under the hood). Scary........straight line scary.

This new car as animalistic as it is still has road manners.
A flat out A12 doesn't.
As far as names go realistically the Volare Road Runner right out of the box wasn't a muscle car. Just look at the hp numbers.

The numbers on the new Dodge scream muscle car.
But it's a "today's" muscle car.

 

[kkritsilas]

And finally, the point comes across.

While I am not in agreement that the F body road runner is not a muscle car, the Hellcat Challenger is a real muscle car, without a doubt, and more of a muscle car than the big block cars of yore. Why? Because it is a higher performance car, even in just the plain old straight line. You want to point and shoot? Fine. But at the end of the straight, it will stop without drama. The fact that it can turn, stop, and keep you comfortable is not a factor. Even if you were to turn off ALL of the driver aids, it is still an animal, still faster in a straight line, and will still go around corners better. It may not fit the older definition of "muscle car", but it most definitely is a MUSCLE car, by any definition.

Truth of it is, you can't build the muscle cars of the past, plain and simple. Too many product liability lawsuits waiting to happen, too much government regulation. Even if they were taken away, ie. become non-factors, does anybody believe that a car built like a late 1960s muscle car would sell? I don't. People need, even demand, more of their cars. While the "muscle car" guys want to wax on about how the 1960s muscle cars were so great, the truth is, all of the late 1960s muscle cars will be left for dead by a Hellcat Challenger, even in the case of some/a lot/most modified late 1960s cars. And it will do it while getting better gas mileage, in air conditioned comfort, with a 97 speaker radio blasting Led Zeppelin with sound quality that rivals high end home stereos of 20 years ago. And the kicker is, it will probably cost less. I'm not saying that the old muscle cars don't have their attractions, just that they are cars of their time, and they are to be appreciated for what they are, not turned into mythological unicorns that can never be bettered.

My point is not to knock the late 1960s muscle cars, it is to try and put them in perspective. The cars of those day were cars of those days, and the cars of today are not from the late 1960s. However, to worship the late 1960s muscle cars as some sort of be-all and end all of high performance (even just in a straight line) to the exclusion of other cars is to look at the car world with blinkers on. I take a wider view of things. The late 1960s brought out some of the truly great cars, and not just from Mopar; most of the US manufacturers had something special those days, from the AMC Rebel Machine, AMX and Javelin, the Buick GSX, the Chevrolet big block Corvettes, Z28s, Nova and Chevelle SSes, Oldsmobile 442 W30s, Pontiac GTOs, Judges, and 400 Firebirds (as well as the first Trans-Am), and our favourites, Dodge Chargers, Superbees, and Challengers, and Plymouth Barracuda/'Cuda, Road Runners, and GTXs, all the manufacturers had something (maybe not Cadillac and Lincoln). But as wonderful as those cars were, do not forget that they had their limitations, many of which have gone away with the latest hot (dare I say muscle) cars. It isn't just the Hellcat cars either, a 392 Challenger, a Camaro SS, or even a Mustang GT will outrun (=outmuscle) the late 1960s muscle cars. Does that diminish the late 1960s muscle cars? No, it doesn't. What it does do is to allow one to see the reality of what was, and what is.

 

[slant6billy]

I got to think mopar will sell the drive train for a Drag pak challey. So a very spent volare coupe without a drive train but with a good title is the perfect match

 

[Jack Meoff]

And finally, the point comes across.

While I am not in agreement that the F body road runner is not a muscle car, the Hellcat Challenger is a real muscle car, without a doubt, and more of a muscle car than the big block cars of yore. Why? Because it is a higher performance car, even in just the plain old straight line. You want to point and shoot? Fine. But at the end of the straight, it will stop without drama. The fact that it can turn, stop, and keep you comfortable is not a factor. Even if you were to turn off ALL of the driver aids, it is still an animal, still faster in a straight line, and will still go around corners better. It may not fit the older definition of "muscle car", but it most definitely is a MUSCLE car, by any definition.

Truth of it is, you can't build the muscle cars of the past, plain and simple. Too many product liability lawsuits waiting to happen, too much government regulation. Even if they were taken away, ie. become non-factors, does anybody believe that a car built like a late 1960s muscle car would sell? I don't. People need, even demand, more of their cars. While the "muscle car" guys want to wax on about how the 1960s muscle cars were so great, the truth is, all of the late 1960s muscle cars will be left for dead by a Hellcat Challenger, even in the case of some/a lot/most modified late 1960s cars. And it will do it while getting better gas mileage, in air conditioned comfort, with a 97 speaker radio blasting Led Zeppelin with sound quality that rivals high end home stereos of 20 years ago. And the kicker is, it will probably cost less. I'm not saying that the old muscle cars don't have their attractions, just that they are cars of their time, and they are to be appreciated for what they are, not turned into mythological unicorns that can never be bettered.

My point is not to knock the late 1960s muscle cars, it is to try and put them in perspective. The cars of those day were cars of those days, and the cars of today are not from the late 1960s. However, to worship the late 1960s muscle cars as some sort of be-all and end all of high performance (even just in a straight line) to the exclusion of other cars is to look at the car world with blinkers on. I take a wider view of things. The late 1960s brought out some of the truly great cars, and not just from Mopar; most of the US manufacturers had something special those days, from the AMC Rebel Machine, AMX and Javelin, the Buick GSX, the Chevrolet big block Corvettes, Z28s, Nova and Chevelle SSes, Oldsmobile 442 W30s, Pontiac GTOs, Judges, and 400 Firebirds (as well as the first Trans-Am), and our favourites, Dodge Chargers, Superbees, and Challengers, and Plymouth Barracuda/'Cuda, Road Runners, and GTXs, all the manufacturers had something (maybe not Cadillac and Lincoln). But as wonderful as those cars were, do not forget that they had their limitations, many of which have gone away with the latest hot (dare I say muscle) cars. It isn't just the Hellcat cars either, a 392 Challenger, a Camaro SS, or even a Mustang GT will outrun (=outmuscle) the late 1960s muscle cars. Does that diminish the late 1960s muscle cars? No, it doesn't. What it does do is to allow one to see the reality of what was, and what is.

The original point or question was. Is the Volare Road Runner a muscle car in stock form. The answer is still no.

Is a stock Hellcat a muscle car? It's a car your grandmother could drive.....it's a well mannered car with a lot of muscle. It's technically a muscle car but a new generation muscle car. It'll hold your hand while you're driving it. As long as you're not a total idiot you should be fine. Definitely not the case with the original version of what a muscle car is. They'll take you out and laugh about it.

This new Dodge although it's a Hellcat it's a race ready/race only muscle car. It won't bite you like an A12 would but you wouldn't be tossing the keys to grandma either.

It may be personal opinion and it really is apples and oranges but muscle did die in the early 70's. There were lots of cars with fancy markings after that but it was just for show. They weren't muscle. An Omni platform Dodge Rampage could hand a stock Volare Runner it's ass. What does that tell you.?

This Dodge is a return to the muscle car and I'm thrilled to see it. A stock Hellcat is a damn fast family car. IMO.

Just to clarify my point.
The muscle car had one purpose. Point and shoot.
The civilian Hellcat was made to take little Jimmy to baseball practice and still be fast as hell so technically it's not a muscle car. This new Hellcat is made for one purpose. Point and shoot. Therefore I'd call it a muscle car.

Technically this should be on the other thread.

 

[80 Aspen RT]

I was driving this one for awhile a couple weeks ago. 392 Hemi /Auto, .....I can't imagine what kind of power the Hellcat 's have.

 

[53ryder]

Well..................what's not to like? Just watching the video I can feel my heart beat a bit faster! Cool!


Glenn

 

[Jack Meoff]

I think it's absolutely awesome that Dodge had the balls to do this.

 

[Master M]

The Hellcat is NOT a muscle car, It is a dream car 99.9 % of us will never own. The muscle cars of the 1960's were enjoyed by 99.9 % of us with an everlasting impression on us decades later. It is fun to dream, but it is more fun to drive. I think it is great cars like the Hellcat are made. I would just like to see the roads once again as they were in the sixties and seventies where affordable muscle ran wild everywhere.

 

[kkritsilas]

Exactly how many of those "affordable" muscle cars were affordable? How many Hemi 'Cudas (Hemi anything for that matter) were made? How many Boss 429 Mustangs, 429 Cougar Eliminators, how many AMXs, LS6 Chevelle SS 454s? Again, a lot of rose colored glasses being worn. You can get affordable performance very easily; you don't need a Hellcat. You can get it in a 392 Challenger, a Camaro SS, or a Mustang GT. No they are not Hellcat level performance cars (realistically, what is, that isn't a Hellcat?). A stock 392 Challenger will beat a stock Hemi 'Cuda, in any performance measurement that makes sense in the real world, as well as any of the other holy grail performance cars that I mentioned. $40-50K or so, depending on options and how good a deal you can work out with the local dealer; as fast as anybody would reasonably want, and easily available. Even in the days of the late 1960s-early 1970s, the top end muscle cars were not cheap, nor were they that common, much less "running wild everywhere". There were more types of musclecars, and in total, probably there were more of them out there, but it isn't like everybody was driving one, with the odd plain jane car trhown in. In fact, the opposite was true.

The Hellcat Challenger or Charger are as much a dream car as a Hemi 'Cuda or Boss 429 or 440 six Pack Road Runner or ANX, or 442 W30, or GSX were in the late 1960s-early 1970s. Difference is, you can buy (or will be able to next year, this years production is sold out) one today, for about $70K. A Hemi 'Cuda, today, will set you back a few hundred thousand ( unless it is a plum crazy convertible, in which case, it will be about $1.5M). Which one is affordable, today? In a world where Camrys are pushing $40K, a Hellcat, considering what it is, doesn't seem to be out of line.

 

[Jack Meoff]

If memory serves a 69 Runner was around $4000 new.
That's about $25,000 in today's coin.
Back then it was cheap muscle.

 

[Master M]

With all due respect you are leaving out alot of the models available as muscle cars in the 1960's and 1970's. ( You can get affordable performance very easily ?? How many of us can drop 45k on affordable muscle ? Putting on the rose colored glasses and the check book still may not be up to the task. Of course there were more of them out there, that's what made it the era it was. My comment did not say the top end muscle cars were everywhere. It said affordable muscle cars were everywhere. Check out the 1968-69 Dodge Super Bee 440 6-Pack below. Base price Bee $3130.00, as equipped below 440 six-Pack $3824.00. difference $694.00 or 18%. Your numbers look like affordable muscle today is 45k, Hell Cat 70k. Difference 25k or 35%. I am glad that can be considered affordable.

One such A12 Super Bee hardtop was ordered by George Hyndman, a budget-minded, high-performance buyer at Martin B. Glauser Dodge in Vineland, New Jersey, in the spring of 1969. Along with the 440 Six Pack, he chose the Sure Grip differential ($42.35 extra), the max cooling package and torque-drive fan (which, together, added another $25.25), MusicMaster pushbutton AM radio ($61.55), a black vinyl top ($89.20), and a deluxe steering wheel ($5.45). Add all those to the Bee hardtop's $3,130 base price, and the sticker's bottom line came to $3,824.60, before the $78 destination charge was added.



Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/mopp-1105-1969-dodge-coronet-super-bee-hardtop/#ixzz3ewK8jiMo
Follow us: @HotRodMagazine on Twitter | HotRodMag on Facebook

 

[kkritsilas]

And in 1969, high octane gas was $0.25/gallon. Straight conversion of 1969 to 2015 dollars doesn't work, because a lot of the cost of modern cars is not due to the cars, it is due to gov't requirements (ABS, traction control, tire pressure monitoring system, stability control system, etc.)

As for truly affortdable muscle cars, with comparable performance, just get a standard 5.7 Hemi Challenger. It should be in the $25-30K range, or a standard Mustang GT, same price range.

And to be frank, here today, in 2015, it really doesn't matter that a 1969 Superbee was $4K, or $3.5K, because NO new car costs $3-4K. I have pointed out the performance cars of today that could be had for $25K. I used the top end muscle cars as an example due to their being the only ones that could come anywhere near being compared to a Hellcat, and they would still lose. A ZL1 Camaro (one of 17), or a Boss 429 Mustang (63 or so) would lose. As for affordable performance, would a Mustang GT beat a 440 Six Pack Superbee? Maybe yes, maybe no (and I am talking about straight line, 1/4 mile drag race, both cars being stock, but broken in). Point is, performance would not be far off, except when the road is no longer a 1/4 mile drag strip, the Superbee becomes a rapidly receding image in the rear view mirror. Is the Mustang GT as "raw" as the Superbee. No, no modern car can be, partially due to gov't regulations, partially due to customer expectations. Is the Mustang going to be more comfortable, safer, stop better, turn better, and will it do it in air conditioned comfort, and get better gas mileage while doing it? You bet. Will you have the feeling that you are driving something special, that can hold its own against most cars? You bet. Is it as good looking? Hard to say, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and comes down to personal preference.

Yes, you would be paying more for a 392 Challenger than the equivalent 440 Six Pack; but you are also getting higher performance, amongst other things. How much did a Hemi Road Runner, Hemi Cuda. or Hemi SuperBee cost back then? I know a Hemi was between $500-800 all by itself for a base car, and the 440 Six-Pack was about $240 over the base car, so add another $300-460 to the SuperBee's price, and work it out. And in the end, today's 392 Challenger is still faster.

As for the "How many of today's muscle cars do you see?" question, this is not 1969. How may ricers (Subaru WRXs and the like) did you see in 1969? How many European cars (Audis, BMWs, Merecedes-Benzes, Jaguars, etc.) were being driven around in 1969? How many jacked up Ram Diesel trucks? All of those were non-factors in 1969, because they were simply not available. In 1969, today's guy driving a jacked up, soot spewing diesel Ram truck very well may have chosen to drive a 440 Six Pack Superbee. However, today, he drives the Ram truck, spends $20-30K on jacking up the suspension, putting on oversize tires and wheels, and chipping/tuning the Cummins diesel. If this truck, and the aftermarket for it, were not available, he would be in a 392 Challenger, or a Boss 302 Mustang or Camaro SS. The ricer driver may have been in the same type of car. In my neck of the woods, there are tons of such cars; replace them with any of today's muscle cars, and the ratio would probably not be far off from what you had in 1969. The percentage of people who want to drive something special really doesn't vary from generation to generation, as an opinion, what does vary is what types of "special" cars are available to fill that need. In the late 1960s-early 1970s, it was muscle cars, only. Today, there are many, many other choices.

In 1969, you bought a muscle car because it was the only game in town if you wanted something special to drive. Today it isn't, so what was a muscle car only market has become a very wide range of vehicles. In Calgary, there are more shops that specialize in diesel high performance than restoration and hot rod shops combined. The trucks that go in are in the $40-80K range, and come out with the added $20-30K in add-ons. Obviously, those drivers could have gone with a Hellcat Challenger(if they weren't sold out, and if they were available here)/Z28 Camaro/GT500 Mustang for the same money, but chose not to. This has nothing to do with the affordability of the cars, as obviously, the money is there and being spent; it has more to do with what people prefer to drive. I don't understand why people would buy a diesel pickup and modify it, but there are many people around doing it, so what do I know. All of the expensive vehicle owners,(diesel truck, ricer, European import) are lost modern muscle car sales.

 

[Aspen500]

Man, now I'm sorry I posted the link to the TV ads.....................................