Dodge was decidedly late to the pony car party, waiting more than five years to join the fray with the new E-body Dodge Challenger. The Challenger was just as muscle-bound as its Plymouth Barracuda sibling and even bigger, offering a full array of styling tricks and performance gimmicks backed by some of Detroit’s most powerful engines. In December 1969, Car Life tested a wild-looking FC7 Plum Crazy 1970 Challenger R/T convertible with the formidable 440 Six Pack engine and a four-speed manual transmission, dubbing it “Genghis Grape.”
When I put together these Vintage Review posts, I try to find color photos of examples that are as close as I can manage to the cars originally tested. This is sometimes easier said than done, especially with low-production cars. Dodge built 83,032 Challengers in 1970, of which 19,938 were the R/T model. Only 1,070 of those were convertibles, and only 99 of those had the 440 Six Pack engine, 61 of them with four-speeds. Add to that brief a specific extra-cost High Impact paint color — FC7, which Dodge called Plum Crazy — and you can see the problem.
The good news is that the handful of people who bought big-engine Challenger convertibles in this vivid “Purple People Eater” color seem to have preserved them, as I found several. None of them quite matched the specification of the Car Life test car — which had the white longitudinal tape stripe of the car picture below, white vinyl upholstery, a white convertible top, and the $32.35 decklid luggage rack — but production was so low that that particular combination might well have been unique.
The Car Life test car was an early-production convertible that had previously been used in a TV spot. It had suffered some mechanical abuse in that role that had left it with bent valves, which had to be repaired before CL could run their performance tests. It was an R/T, which was the performance trim series, with a standard 383 four-barrel engine, bucket seats Rallye instrumentation, fitted with the $249.55 440-6 engine, $194.85 heavy-duty four-speed gearbox, and $142.85 Track Pak with 3.54 Dana Sure-Grip axle.
If the really hot Dodge and Plymouth models weren’t frequent sights on contemporary streets, their reputation preceded. Their vivid optional paint jobs made them hard to miss, but Car Life found that it was the 440 Six Pack call-outs that made the biggest impression on passersby:
ROLLING DOWN THE FREEWAY, Genghis Grape had no challengers. A squat, sleek Ponycar painted metallic purple, with white top and white stripe down the side, draws the eye. Other drivers pulled out of their lanes and sidled over for a closer look. Emblem to emblem, the other car always flinched. Bolted to the Challenger’s power-bulged hood was Detroit’s equivalent of the black belt: 440 Six Pack. A sheepish smile, and the gawkers got back into line.
The 440 Six Pack was the second-hottest engine the Chrysler Corporation offered in this era, expanding the capabilities of the already stout 440 Four Barrel with a higher compression ratio and a trio of Holley two-throat carburetors with a vacuum linkage, giving an SAE gross output of 390 hp and 490 lb-ft of torque. The more expensive 426 Hemi had greater ultimate power, but extracting it required higher revs. It was well-known that on the street, a 440 could usually beat a Hemi at any legal speed, and there were only a handful of very elite stock engines that could run with it.
In retrospect, the fact that Dodge dealers had had to watch for five years as Ford sold Mustangs by the truckload is almost hard to believe. According to the late Burt Bouwkamp, the head of Dodge Division product planning in this era, Dodge dealers had begged for a Mustang-fighter back in 1964, but Chrysler president Lynn Townsend had told Bouwkamp, “For God’s sake don’t make it a derivative of the Barracuda.” Instead, Dodge got the fastback Charger, Chrysler’s answer to the Rambler Marlin. The second-generation Charger had eventually become a handsome and competitive intermediate muscle car, but there was still nothing to rival the Mustang.
The Challenger, which shared its new E-body platform with the third-generation Plymouth Barracuda, wasn’t even planned until 1967. At that time, with the pony car market booming, Bouwkamp had confidently promised senior management that the corporation could sell 200,000 of the new pony cars a year in Dodge and Plymouth versions.
Car Life explained:
Dodge is a mid-price division, and follows the lead of its competitors. Like Cougar and Firebird, Challenger shares a body. It’s Chrysler Corp’s “E” body: stretched to provide some extra room, two extra inches of wheelbase for a stylishly longer appearance. and trim changes so it won’t be mistaken for cousin Barracuda. The E-bodied cars carry two themes—wide and low—further than the rivals from the other makers. Parked next to a Camaro or Javelin, the Challenger shows about the same frontal area, but in different proportion, almost as if a giant hand has squeezed the Challenger down or pinched the others in. There is good and bad here, as we will see.
Bouwkamp said the Challenger was intended to be priced about $100 about the Barracuda (the actual difference in base V-8 hardtop form was $88), with a longer wheelbase and different exterior styling to distinguish the Dodge from its Plymouth brother. The cowl structure, windshield, and door openings were shared, although the Challenger eventually got unique outer door skins because sharing the Barracuda doors “limited achieving a unique appearance.”
A 1970 Challenger was 4.6 inches longer than the Barracuda, stretching 191.3 inches on a 110-inch wheelbase. This made it the second-biggest of the pony cars — the 1970 Mercury Cougar was another 4.8 inches longer, albeit 2 inches narrower, with a narrower track. This made the Challenger quite heavy for its class and era: The lightest six-cylinder hardtop had a curb weight of 3,150 lb, with the lightest Challenger R/T convertible weighing 3,622 lb. Car Life‘s 440-6 convertible weighed about 3,900 lb, pushing the test weight (with two people and their equipment) to a hefty 4,325 lb.
The Car Life editors nonetheless expected great things. In their July 1969 issue, they’d tested a 1969 Dodge Super Bee with the 440 Six Pack engine, a functional hood scoop, TorqueFlite, and a 4.10 axle, which weighed only 55 lb less than this convertible, but returned a sizzling best quarter-mile elapsed time of 13.75 seconds, at 104.52 mph — first-rank performance in 1969.
Genghis Grape was not up to that standard. Car Life explained:
Oh, the car didn’t disgrace itself. In test condition, it fell easily into the Supercar bracket, with a best quarter-mite E.T. of 14.64 sec. [at 97.82 mph] and an average of 14.8. We’ve seen faster 440 Coronets. No obvious faults with the engine on test day. It simply didn’t go as fast as we’d expected it to. Sort of like the 427 Corvettes and the Boss 429 Mustang we tried during the past model year. Emissions controls? Poor tuning? We dunno. That’s the way the illusion crumbled.
Federal and California emissions standards were tightened for 1970, accompanied by a shift from measuring hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide by exhaust fraction to total emission weight per vehicle mile. With gross power ratings, any changes required to meet the new standards were not reflected in published outputs, nor was any power sacrificed to California’s new drive-by noise regulations. However, the four-speed test car’s earlier bent-valve incident, though repaired, may have left it in something less than peak mechanical shape.
Car Life found that the pistol-grip four-speed gearbox detracted from performance rather than helping:
One drawback was the four-speed transmission and/or its shifter. Point one; this big an engine doesn’t need a four-speed. This big an engine does need a strong transmission, and a stout lever and a big clutch. They are supplied. Pedal effort is high and the lever is hell for stout. The factory said at model introduction that pains have been taken to lighten the shifting effort, and speed it up. The 1970 version is lighter, and it may be faster, but that doesn’t mean it’s light and fast. Deacon Jones’ big brother might be able to move this massive oar like a hot knife through butter, but we couldn’t. Nor can the synchromesh delay be beaten by the human hand. Haul back on the grip and the box snaps out of gear. Fine. Then there’s a grrrriinch as all the little cogs get in step, then zut, the next gear has arrived. Seemed like at least one second was spent waiting for the gears to line up on every run. This is purely subjective opinion, but when Dodge provides an excellent automatic transmission and an awkward four-speed, we can’t see buying the four-speed.
With the 440 engine, heavy-duty TorqueFlite cost only $32.20 more than the four-speed, and returned more consistent performance with less effort.
Unlike their later test of a 1970 Plymouth ‘Cuda 340, which had found the handling disappointingly stodgy even with the smaller, lighter engine, Car Life thought the Challenger R/T handled well:
The Challenger powered around the road course like a small Charger. Here’s where Dodge’s delay begins to pay off. The engineers knew when they planned the chassis that the 440 was going to be in it. No overpowering, like maybe the 396 Camaro. No compensations, like the 428 Mach 1 Mustang, or special assembly lines and revision like the Boss 429. The Challenger was ready for the big engine. Here’s the major width benefit. The Challenger is wide, and its track is equal to the taller Charger in front, wider still in back. Given equal tires, suspension and spring rates, on the track or anywhere, the wider car will corner faster. Like the Charger, the 440 Challenger could be pitched into the turns on brakes and powered out with just enough oversteer to have the car pointed toward the exit when the time came. On faster, sweeping turns, the car was close to neutral, with just a touch of positive lock needed to keep in a steady-state curve. The weight balance isn’t the best, but the stiff rear springs reduce dreaded understeer to far below the level of the average big-engine Supercar.
I see two relevant points to explain the disparity in CL‘s handling impressions of the Barracuda and Challenger. First, they drove the Challenger first, and because it was an all-new model, it didn’t have any real precedent in the editors’ experience other than the bigger Charger and Coronet. With the Barracuda, Car Life had recently tested, and liked, the outgoing A-body model with the 340 engine, which had been more nimble. Second, E-bodies with the 426 Hemi or 440 Six Pack engines had significantly stiffer springs, particularly in back, where the rear leaf springs were 13.6 percent stiffer than on a 340 or 383 ‘Cuda or R/T, producing the reduction in understeer the testers noted above.
The photo captions at the top of the above page read, “TRIPLE-CARB 440 is an easy fit, but didn’t perform as we’d expected. SHAPED seats lack lateral support.”
Of the stiffer suspension, Car Life noted:
The stiffer springs aren’t there just for handling. Their primary purpose is to control the rear axle under acceleration. Dodge (and Plymouth) rear suspensions are not sophisticated.
The CL editors mused:
A good case can he made for more elaborate methods of controlling the motions and directions of (he various components of a car. The trend now is to keep the live rear axle, which is easy and inexpensive to build, and doesn’t have the service problems that have cropped up in the economy versions of independent rear suspensions. … Coil-sprung live axles, with trailing arms, lateral arms and so on can do a good job of keeping the rear wheels in place. But Chrysler isn’t convinced that the benefits are worthwhile.
Because this test was obviously written quite early (probably no later than September 1969), certain spec panel information probably wasn’t yet available. The spec panel on this page doesn’t have the spring rates, but according to the AMA specifications, wheel rates for the “Hemi suspension” (also used with the 440-6) were 118 lb/inch in front, 150 lb/inch in back; rear spring rate for cars with the 340, 383, or 440 Four Barrel engines was 132 lb/inch at the wheel.
Incomplete information at the time of writing was probably also responsible for the absence of as-tested price information and the fact that the listed base price ($3,222) is for a base 1970 Challenger V-8 convertible, not the R/T. In 1970, an R/T convertible started at $3,535, with the 440 Six Pack engine adding $249.55, the four-speed $194.85, the Track Pak $142.85, power disc/drum brakes $27.90, power brakes $42.95, power steering $105.20, power windows another $105.20, six-way adjustable driver’s seat $33.30, evaporative emissions control $37.85, and the AM/FM radio $213.60. The Plum Crazy paint was an extra $14.05, with the luggage rack adding $32.35. That adds up to $4,734.65, and there were undoubtedly some other minor options not specified, so figure something over $4,800 plus destination — a relative worth of around $40,000 in 2025.
The photo captions at the top of the above page read, “INSTRUMENTS with R/T package tell the driver what he needs to know. COLLAPSED spare tire is optional.” (The small can atop the spare wheel rim is the inflater for the spare.)
With previous hot Dodge and Plymouth models, off-the-line traction had been a problem, but that wasn’t an issue with the extra-heavy-duty suspension, even with F70-14 bias-ply tires. In addition to the higher spring rate, the heavy-duty suspension on 440-6 and Hemi E-bodies had an extra leaf spring on each, which seems to have further improved axle control with the customary Chrysler asymmetric spring mounting, albeit at a cost in ride quality:
With a big engine, the springs must be stiff or the axle winds itself into the leaves. The Challenger worked fine off the line. No problem there. And the higher rates aided handling. But in a straight line they are too stiff for comfort. Crossing dips in the road brings out a kerWHOP that jolts car and riders even at low speeds.
The data panel included the following performance highlights:
- 0 to 30 mph: 3.1 sec.
- 0 to 60 mph: 7.1 sec.
- 0 to 100 mph: 15.7 sec.
- Standing ¼-mile: 14.64 sec. at 97.82 mph
- Top speed: 128 mph at 6,100 rpm
- Test average fuel consumption: 10.7 mpg
I’m skipping over some speculation about handling packages for the smaller engines, some of which is wrong (the 340 Challenger and ‘Cuda didn’t actually get the promised rear anti-roll bar until quite late in the model year).
The test car had power steering, and CL was pleased with it:
Extra high marks to Dodge for the power steering. Steering ratios don’t change this year, but turning the wheel takes more muscle. Mopar’s feathery power-assisted steering has been carped at in the past, and it’s no longer so delicate. And the road can be felt when the driver needs to.
Road feel or no, unless you were building a dedicated drag racer, the thought of a big-engine E-body with non-power steering (5.5 turns lock-to-lock) is not a happy one, so this seems like $105.20 well spent.
Their test car also had front discs, which were included with some of the Performance Axle Packages, but not the Track Pak. The discs were only $27.90, but they had to be ordered with power brakes, which were an extra $42.95. Car Life remarked:
We’d rather the factory insisted on discs coming with power than power with discs, but that’s Dodge’s marketing philosophy. More to the point, the discs are what’s needed. The 440 Barracuda tested in the June [1969] CAR LIFE had drums all around (no place to put the booster) and it barely braked into the average category. The Challenger, weighing in at 500 pounds more, had a higher initial deceleration rate (27 ft./sec./sec.) and it stopped in as short a distance as did the much lighter Fiat 124, with discs all round, that we tested in September. The Challenger’s brakes are called on to do a great deal of work, and they did fade. By the eighth stop, the car kept rolling along. Discs are fade-resistant, which is not the same as being fade-proof. The test is harsh, and the Challenger’s brakes were more than adequate for highway driving.
Two years earlier, Car Life had tested a 1968 Barracuda 340-S with front discs and no brake booster, and found the brakes unpleasantly heavy, requiring pedal effort that “bordered on the fantastic” — and that was in a car more than 400 lb lighter than this Challenger. Here again, I think power brakes were the better part of valor.
Interior room and interior comfort were not high points of the E-body line. The 1970 Dodge Data Book for dealers and salespeople claimed, “Challenger is a Winner in Roominess!!” and presented a comparison table trumpeting its (marginally) greater “Roominess Index” compared to the Mustang, Camaro, Javelin, Cougar, and Firebird. Nonetheless, Car Life found the Challenger disconcertingly cramped:
Inside, the Challenger has problems. It isn’t a Charger on a smaller scale. Some of the components—engine, transmission, rear axle, etc.—are the same for both cars. The Challenger is a condensed Charger, with the same equipment packed into less space. The people-room suffers.
The Challenger is low. The seat is close to the floor, and the steering wheel is close to the seat. We complained about the high wheel all last year? Better we had kept quiet. Or that Dodge had included the tilting column in the options for the Challenger. Dodge has such a column, but you can only get one with the larger Polara and Monaco.
The car did have the six-way adjustable seat, but we didn’t like it much, either. The seat itself is permanently shaped. It slides back and forth, and it tilts. Thing is, when you lean the seat back over, you raise the cushion at the same time, and the mild discomfort of having the wheel rim on your legs becomes impaired circulation. The test drivers, of whatever height and weight, all found themselves driving with the seat placed about where it would be if it wasn’t adjustable. The high-backed buckets look fine, but lateral support is far less than the car’s lateral traction. At speed, driver and passenger brace themselves, or rock back and forth, or hang by their shoulder harnesses.
The E-body seats remind me of furniture designed by famous architects: long on design, short on actual comfort. As for the back seat, the listing for the above car with white vinyl upholstery didn’t have any shots of the rear seat, so here’s the back seat of the Mecum car, whose black vinyl emphasizes what a cramped and depressing hole it was:
The Car Life editors complained:
And the rear seat is impossible. Not even the daintiest wife could sit back there for long.
Most Ponycars are like that, but the Challenger has two extra inches of wheelbase, and it’s supposed to provide more rear seat space. If this is the large-size E body, even the kids stay home when the Barracuda gets here.
As I noted above, Car Life hadn’t yet driven the Barracuda at the time this test was written, but their February 1970 test of a ‘Cuda 340 found its back seat a tight squeeze even for a not-very-big 10-year-old boy. It was probably more often used for extra groceries or baggage that wouldn’t fit in the tiny trunk.
The editors did like the Rallye instrument cluster (standard on R/T cars, $90.30 on other V-8 Challengers): “All the right gauges, big tach, and reachable, legible controls.”
CL concluded:
We haven’t been very nice to Genghis Grape. The Challenger has a superior chassis, good brakes, we think successful styling and the best selection of engines in town. But when you condense a Charger, the occupants feel the pinch.
Despite their attractive styling and straight-line performance, the E-body Challenger and Barracuda laid an egg in the contemporary marketplace: too bulky, too impractical, too costly to insure. Combined first-year volume was 138,531 (83,032 Challengers, 55,499 Barracudas), well short of the 200,000 units a year Burt Bouwkamp had promised back in 1967.
Bouwkamp later recalled:
We never hit even 100,000 [Dodge] E-body cars a year. Compact specialty car market leveled off below 1,000,000 cars per year, and our E body sales never reached 15% of that. We lost money (unhappy management) and we did not build the cars well (unhappy customers). … I was lucky to keep my job as Director of Product Planning. It seemed like every time John Riccardo (President) saw an “E” Body he got mad at me.
(Bouwkamp went on to a more successful tenure as director of European product development and then managing director of Japan operations; he died in 2022.)
Today, of course, the E-bodies are very popular and highly collectible, and the Challenger spawned a surprisingly successful modern version with even more formidable engines beneath retro styling — it took decades, but Chrysler eventually made a silk purse out of these stylish but ill-timed sow’s ears.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger – The Life Of The Party (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T Convertible – Son, That’s Plum Crazy! (by Jason Shafer)
In-Motion Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T – Wide In Japan (by Tatra87)
Curbside Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger – Vanishing Paint (by Dave Saunders)
Museum Classic: 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T SE – It’s Pink! (by Tom Klockau)
Cohort Pic(k) of the Day: 1970 Dodge Challenger Coupe – 198 Slant Six Under The Hood? (by Paul N)
Automotive History Oddity: 1971 Dodge Challenger “Coupe” With 198 Cubic Inch Slant Six (by Paul N)
Vintage Car Life Road Test: 1970 Plymouth Barracuda ‘Cuda 340 – “At Least The Stylists Did A Good Job Of It” (by me)
CC Outtake: Classic vs Modern – Barracuda and Challenger (by Dave Saunders)
I think I have figured it out. The 1970-74 E body was the perfect toy, if poorly built. But there was not a volume market for a poorly built toy in those days, so the cars languished on dealer lots.
As a collectible, the poor workmanship is corrected in any decent restoration process, and a collector car is a toy by definition. It has impressive straight line performance to push passengers back in their seats, it is meant for one or two people to cruise around in, and it has to look great. The E bodies do these things beautifully, and are therefore highly esteemed cars now.
I would love to know the backstory on the test car – just what did those TV people do to destroy that engine?
Since it was a 4-speed, I assume they probably missed a shift and overrevved to the point of valve float.
The other E-body attribute is that because they sold poorly when new, especially in the desirable combinations, almost any collector-grade car is an “X of Y!!” rarity.
JP’s summation is a great, real-world description of the E-body as a toy is spot-on. Other than appearance and short, straight-line acceleration runs, they simply weren’t very good cars. A friend had one years ago, and I vividly recall time in the passenger seat resulting in back pain after no more than 30 minutes.
Chrysler really took a bath on the cars, and I’d go so far as they were the start of the company’s steady, seventies’ downward spiral, only punctuated with the brief successes of the Cordoba and Omnirizon.
With that said, I’ve never been much of a fan of white interiors or vinyl/convertible tops, but I have to admit that on these Mopars with a ‘High Impact’ color, they do look better in that configuration. It’s really noticable here on the Plum Crazy cars, with the black top and interior version versus the better one with the white interior, top, and R/T side stripe.
I was confused when I read in the first paragraph that the Challenger was bigger than the Barracuda. Then I saw that it had a 2” longer wheelbase. I never knew that; I had just assumed from the age of 12 on that they were clones, like Camaro and Firebird. I’m glad that can still learn new things after all these decades. Thanks Aaron and CC.
It looks like the stylists definitely went to pains to emphasize the 2″ difference in length between the two cars, at least at first. The Challenger has a crease in the sides that extends the entire length of the car, which is even more pronounced with center location of the side stripe.
The Barracuda, OTOH, had a big ‘hip’ bulge in the quarter panels. There were quarter panel stripes, too, but they were after and near the window sill, progressing to a huge size with the one-year-only 1971 ‘billboard’ stripes, all of which contributed to a shorter length appearance.
The Challenger/Cuda really followed the Cougar/Mustang relationship more than anything in their package and appearance, they two had different wheelbases. I always loved this early clay image of the Challenger being sculpted in its infancy, with a 67 Cougar right there in the background providing inspiration.
So when it came to muscle cars of 1969 it seems the Mustang 428 CJ was easily faster than this car 0-60 and 1/4 mile even if they could shift. As a 16-17 year old back then the 428 CJ impressed me with being damn fast. Not very scientific but just a seat of the pants gut feeling at the time. Now could the Torqueflite move the needle enough to get this under under 6 seconds 0-60? Again, gut feeling is not quite. Quarter mile under 14 seconds might be close. Oh, but the cache and badging of a production 440-6V is hard to top if you don’t mention hemi.
The Super Bee 440-6/TorqueFlite car they tested earlier in the year was a bunch faster than this. It benefitted from a 4.10 rear axle (with the heavy-duty Dana 9.75-inch ring gear), but its best E.T. was under 14 seconds, with a 104.2 mph trap speed. In cars this heavy, a 6.4 mph increase in trap speed means a substantially better power-to-weight ratio, so Genghis Grape appears to have been down some horsepower.
The earlier car still didn’t crack 6 seconds 0 to 60, though.
it was well known that only professional racers who were willing to risk granading the 4-speed by speed shifting it could extract a slightly better ET than a comparable TF version. The TF was the way to go…faster.
I’d go so far as to suggest that the gimmicky pistol-grip shifter didn’t help matters any. A simple round knob might have avoided that kind of engine damage. Even a GM or Ford T-handle shifter would have been better.
The Chrysler A-833 came in 2 basic versions in those days, the regular fine pitch gear model that came with 340’s and 383’s, and a heavy duty coarse pitch gear model used with 440’s and Hemi’s (ratios were same except for 340 Six-Pack E bodies). The coarse pitch 833 was more than a little balky, and the long ‘pistol-grip’ lever and the leverage it provided may have been more of an advantage than a hindrance, at least it seemed to be in the examples I have driven. Nonetheless, I think it’s a safe assumption someone did miss a shift and bent the valves in the road test car. The reason for that cars somewhat lackluster performace was it probably needed a good tune after the engine repairs were made. It took time and patience to set a 440 Six Pack up properly, carb. jetting, secondary spring tension, timing and distributor advance curves were all critical for best performance.
I don’t know how that much difference could have contributed but the 1969 A12 6 pack intake manifold was cast aluminum and made by Edelbrock, 70-71 6 packs were cast iron in house, I imagine it robbed a few horsepower
If I didn’t already have a ’60s’ convertible, if I wasn’t in my 70s still saving to pay cash for a retirement home in AZ, I would want a Challenger or Barracuda convertible. Love both the body style and the interior.
I’m betting this example was set up to have the secondary carbs come in very late, likely to keep the magazine guys from blowing it up again. Easy to adjust with a stiffer spring in the diaphragm(s). That would also partially explain the reported decent traction, a healthy big block E-body was difficult to launch just like any other big block muscle car. For sure this car would be happier with a torqueflight though.
The A-833 four speed was a tough unit, but it was also remarkably similar to shifting a truck transmission, pistol grip or no.
Hindsight being what it is, the entire pony/muscle car horsepower wars were ridiculous and a dead end. All of these cars were designed or re-designed to be larger and more portly in order to fit the various big-block engines, almost universally reducing handling and bringing about poor weight distribution. And for what, in the big picture? The era was over almost as soon as it began, as the cars were effectively killed by insurance costs and emissions regulations.
I’d take a nice ’65-’66 Chevelle or Mustang or Barracuda with a healthy small-block engine over any of the fatter big-block cars.
It could be interesting to see what Road & Track, Motor Trend, Car & Driver and Road Test think of the Challenger.
Meanwhile, let’s enjoy this vintage road test of a 1971 Challenger by the late Bud Lindemann for Car & Track.
Ah, the bad old days of going sideways in a panic stop. Good riddance to that.