Keith Tanner said:I don't see where that car is in the video, is it a momentary flash? It's obviously a modified 60's car, no room for airbags in those A pillars at the very least.
The shadowy electric car in the video is never fully visible, but looks a lot like a '68'-70 Charger with oversized wheels, some sort of LED lights surrounding the grill, and taller wheelwell openings. That picture wasn't from the video, just the closest customized Charger I could find.
Jordan Rimpela said:
Like a lot of other Stellantis things, their procedural AI needs work
Were those slogans an actual press release or a parody?
MadScientistMatt said:Were those slogans an actual press release or a parody?
Unfortunately, they're right there in the press release on the Stellantis website. I didn't believe it either so I had to check the source.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Between that god awful list and this embarrassment of a press release, Stellantis should be looking for a new marketing team.
Hummm.... Muscle car has to have a V8.. . . . . Best not tell the guys with Buick's this. I just don't agree with the OP and the initial argument about the definition of a Muscle car. I think it is cool that they are making this stuff. Dodge will be Dodge and do something completely bonkers. I am ok with this. We need more of it these days. Dodge is the crazy uncle of the car world that everyone looks at funny but you know you are going to have a dam good time when you hang out with them.
In reply to dean1484 :
All Buick musclecars had V8s. The turbo sixes came after 1971, the end of the musclecar era.
No word on how Scottish they were 
dean1484 said:Dodge is the crazy uncle of the car world that everyone looks at funny but you know you are going to have a dam good time when you hang out with them.
Yeah, say what you will about Chrysler-DCX-Cerberus-FCA-Stellantis, they are always entertaining.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to dean1484 :
All Buick musclecars had V8s. The turbo sixes came after 1971, the end of the musclecar era.
No word on how Scottish they were
So non of the current dodge hemi v8 cars are muscle cars?
And by extension it does not matter what the car is powered by now it is not a muscle car? Thus the original V8 premise in the original post not correct.
In reply to dean1484 :
Yes, muscle cars were cheap, youth oriented midsize cars with fullsize car engines, sold between 1964 and 1971. The newer Mopars are not cheap, they ARE the fullsize car, and they are newer than 1971.
You could further argue that they don't fit the definition because they don't have strippo interiors, and their suspension/brakes/tires are made for more than just being the cheapest thing they could fit to the car on the assembly line. (Didn't Road Runners have 9" drums on the front?)
No true Scotsman, though.
Which is why I find the "ugh it doesn't have a V8" argument silly, because if you want to subdivide like that, then they weren't musclecars to begin with. Then again this is also the company who calls a wedge headed engine a "Hemi".
dean1484 said:Pete. (l33t FS) said:In reply to dean1484 :
All Buick musclecars had V8s. The turbo sixes came after 1971, the end of the musclecar era.
No word on how Scottish they were
So non of the current dodge hemi v8 cars are muscle cars?
They're not even Dodge Hemis :)
My definition of "muscle car" is not so narrow as Pete's. To me, it's anything that is basically carrying an engine that is far more than really necessary and possibly more than the chassis is willing to handle.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
So, by that rational, this is a muscle car.
In reply to Appleseed :
I'll accept it. It's not a hot hatch because those were more about handling than pure firepower and really only the Europeans are licensed to build them.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
Your definition is a good one.
I will borrow yours and narrow it down with midsize + RWD only because there was an era/genre of actual, similarly-styled midsize+RWD cars that prompted the creation of the term, not just a philosophy or definition that created the idea, and I think that's relevant.
edit: and curves. Curves, hips, something like that!
oh buddy now I'm lost
IDK, in my experience the primary goal of most Challenger/Charger owners is to drive as LOUDLY as possible, never with stock exhaust, and liberal use of the right foot in all types of traffic, and for no apparent reason other than to BE loud.
I realize the electric version will be even faster, but will all the Bros want to be fast when they have to do it quietly?
Plus, many of these people are the same ones who sneer at EVs currently.
Side note: I'm completely serious. I honestly think it will be a strange marketing dynamic, to see whether the typical clientele is concerned with actual performance, or just the noise/look that go with it.
In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :
You've just described at least 75% of riders who own Harleys.
Appleseed said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
So, by that rational, this is a muscle car.
Those were faster that anything else you could call a muscle car at the time at least.
In reply to Tk8398 :
175 horsepower has no business being in that wet noodle chassis, especially powering the front wheels.
Appleseed said:In reply to Tk8398 :
175 horsepower has no business being in that wet noodle chassis, especially powering the front wheels.
So it is an appropriate successor to 383-engined Belvedere.
That's actually not fair, the old B-bodies had a really good chassis.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
You have quite a few miatas that fit in that category. It feels weird calling a Miata a muscle car.
I googled what a muscle car is when I posted this. You can argue all you want about it, but the generally accepted answer is mid sized high performance American car with a V8.
lnlogauge said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
You have quite a few miatas that fit in that category. It feels weird calling a Miata a muscle car.
I googled what a muscle car is when I posted this. You can argue all you want about it, but the generally accepted answer is mid sized high performance American car with a V8.
Counterpoint: Chrysler rear drives are their full size chassis. They're expected to have the most powerful engines, so there is nothing special at all about that.
The Beach Boys may have waxed... poetic? (musical?) about the 409 Impala but that wasn't a musclecar, it was a full size car.
And this is all kind of the point. The last true musclecars were made fifty freakin' years ago. At this point, who cares.
If Chrysler wants to claim to make an electric musclecar today, all they have to do is make a car that is significantly quicker than a Tesla (the current benchmark) while being about half the price. Go to it boys!
lnlogauge said:In reply to Keith Tanner :
You have quite a few miatas that fit in that category. It feels weird calling a Miata a muscle car.
I googled what a muscle car is when I posted this. You can argue all you want about it, but the generally accepted answer is mid sized high performance American car with a V8.
When Drivetribe tested our V8 ND, the video was called "the smallest muscle car" :)
I don't agree it needs to be domestic. Australians have made some real muscle cars over the years. Heck, AMG got pretty into it for a while too. The BMWs probably handle too well to fit the bill.
I see a LOT of Challengers and Chargers around here. It’s almost weird how many people have them. Way more than any other fast car. Is that true in your area?
No one cares about the ancient chassis. My guess is they like the looks and the power and the noise. I bet some will miss the noise, but will be okay with it if they continue to make them look vintage cool and fast.
I knew they weren’t hemis, but not Dodge? Who designed the engine? I never knew it wasn’t Dodge.
You'll need to log in to post.
