A forced perspective picture with “Monument To Joe Louis” in the background. Detroit, Michigan. Sunday, March 18, 2018.
Merriam-Webster defines “forced perspective (n.)” as “the use of any of various techniques (as in photography or architecture) to create the optical illusion that objects or people are smaller, larger, closer, or farther away than they really are”. It’s a really fun concept to play with when taking pictures. It’s a technique I have explored when photographing scale models, miniatures, or even a willing photo subject who I had posed and captured to give the “Monument To Joe Louis” a fist-bump while in Detroit a couple of years ago.
Close to a quarter-century separate this c. 2015 Dodge Challenger and the c. 1991 Ford Mustang GT behind it. Both (mostly) follow the same “ponycar” formula and are true to the RWD / (available-)V8 combination. In terms of size, styling and execution, they couldn’t appear more different on a superficial level. I can’t vouch for the exact model year of either car, due to minor external changes within a few model years of each example (both before and after 1991 for the Mustang, and since 2015 for the Challenger). For the sake of comparison, though, let’s move forward with my premise: Is their apparent difference in size really as vast as it appears above, or is a lot of it due mostly to my camera angle? After snapping a few shots, my curiosity led me to research the respective dimensions of both cars.
The Challenger is at least a 2015 model, as evidenced by its front grille (which I understand is slightly obscured above in the dim, morning light) and rear panel and taillamps. This is an evolution of the same, basic design that went into production in April of 2008 for that same model year. This Chally stretches 197.7″ from front-to-rear, is 75.7″ wide, and is anywhere from 55.7″to 57.5″ tall, depending on whether it has the 18″ or the 20″ rims (which I can’t tell from these photographs). I am by no means “up” on these new Challengers, but if this model is an R/T model from 2015, it likely has a 375-horse 5.7L Hemi V8 under the hood and is capable of 0-60 mph times of just over five seconds. This is for a car that weighs (literally) just over two tons.
This latter-day Fox-platform Mustang GT hatchback does actually have much more modest exterior dimensions than the Dodge, measuring in at 179.6″ long from bumper-to-bumper (over a foot and a half shorter), 68.3″ wide (7.4″ narrower), and just 52.1″ tall on its 16-inch “Pony” rims. I remember having lamented how tall my ’88 Mustang LX had looked next to a similar-generation Chevrolet Camaro, which was only between 50.2″ and 50.4″ tall. (Times have changed, as this Challenger has almost truck-like height in comparison to the ‘Stang.) This was all on a wheelbase of 100.5″. Its 4.9L V8 (called a “5.0”) was rated at 225 horsepower, and the GT hatchback had a base curb weight of 3,190 pounds (almost 25% less than the base Challenger). According to one test, it was capable of going from 0-60 mph in only 7.3 seconds when equipped with the five-speed manual.
The shot I had wanted of both cars, directly front-to-back in full-on side profile, was impossible to get on this narrow-ish, neighborhood side-street. When one looks at the numbers, however, they really aren’t that surprising, considering the age gap between the two cars and also the fact that the Challenger is classified as a midsizer, while this generation of Mustang was based on Ford’s clean-sheet, rear-wheel-drive compact platform from the late-’70s. Still, seeing these two cars together brought back a lot of memories of my teenage years, when the Mustang “5.0” went head to head with GM’s F-Body Chevrolet Camaro / Pontiac Firebird fraternal twins for ponycar performance dominance, and when Dodge’s turbocharged, FWD Daytona hatchback was the closest that the Pentastar organization got at that time to entering the ring.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Tuesday, February 18, 2020.
I thought the base R/T was 5.7 only until you stepped up to the SCAT PACK or something similar?
It is. The R/T only has the 5.7L Hemi, 375HP. Stepping up to the Scat Pack will get you the bigger 6.4L with 485 HP. An SRT engine, but not an SRT car. The SRT got you the better suspension and other SRT goodies.
Thanks, Gentlemen. I’ll fix it when I get a minute.
I have driven a few Fox 5.0 Mustangs including one GT with the body kit, and it seemed amazingly fast but also big and bulky. I find the current Challengers quite appealing but they probably make the Mustang feel like a Mini. If I lived in snow country an AWD V6 Challenger would be hard to resist, and more than quick enough.
To be fair, the Challenger is a large four-seat coupe…perhaps the last one remaining this side of an S-Class Coupe in price (and the S-Class Coupe is getting discontinued).
If my kids had both been in forward facing child seats when I was car shopping last June I would have looked long and hard at the Challenger.
It’s really the last of the two-door sedans, apart from possibly the (admittedly much smaller) Honda Civic coupe, and I expect that to go away in favor of North American production of the hatchback (the latter already announced) at the next major refresh.
Chicago, huh. How did the Mustang escape the salt monster? My ’90 Daytona was beginning to disintegrate at age thirteen and 176,000 miles – replaced a gas tank when the fuel pump died six months before I donated it to the Lubavitchers because of the corrosion of the tank from Northern road salt. But the turbo worked up to the day I drove it to Rabbi Rapoport’s house and walked to the Subaru dealership to pick up the new Legacy.
Otherwise, they do not call to me, neither of them. I must be filled with prime Dad energy.
GT ground effects hide a lot.
the daytona was a really interesting car. i esp liked the 84 turbo Z look with T top. they changed it up slightly in 86 which still looked good to my eyes, just not as good as the 84. they were very fast and if someone knew what they were doing could easily make it even faster. can’t remember, but i think they were faster than the pony cars too. —- I’m a dad now too and never fell for the pony car… even today. not bc of anything about them, but mostly b/c they are/were evrerywhere. too many of them. for me back then i gravitated to smaller asian and euro cars.
Nice write up on model bloat and I enjoy seeing these vintage Mustangs. Say Joseph, anytime you are unsure of a vehicle’s model year just use the license plate to look up said vehicle on Carfax. Works on 1981 and newer vehicles most of the time
https://www.carfax.com/vehicle-history-reports/
Thanks, Teddy! I appreciate that. I am familiar with the Carfax search (the Mustang is a final-Fox ’93) and I’m not sure why I didn’t use a similar tool here.
This past Sunday, though, a license plate search enabled me to nail down the model year of a car I’ve been following since 2012! More on that later. 🙂
or just look at the vin for the year. 8th digit…
I don’t know if this qualifies as “forced perspective” or not, as it wasn’t my intention when I pulled out my iPhone a little over 3 years ago after buying my Civic, but I shared a smaller version of this picture yesterday (CC Effect?) with Mustang Rick when we were discussing five spoke wheels on the QOTD… Ok, I’m digressing…
But the Civic (and I know it’s closer) looks positively HUGE compared to my Mustang, with my wife’s Lancer, as it is in reality (overall size-wise), in the middle of these two.
Of course one could argue as Teddy mentions above regarding “model bloat” that today’s Civic Coupe (tenth-gen) is about the same size as a comparable Accord Coupe from 18-20 years ago (sixth-gen).
The Challenger is indeed a big girl, but fat bottomed girls make the rockin’ world go ’round
LOL!
LT Dan, as always, you were right on time.
A more historically accurate body for the Challenger would have been the 68 Charger, as it has always been more of a small full size (like the original Charger, which was a rebody of a downsized fullsize) but kudos to the Challenger anyway. If someone forced me to buy a modern car at gunpoint, it could only be a Challenger.