How do you go from this

File: 2015-Dodge-Charger-SRT-Hellcat-side.jpg (1MB, 2040x1360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2040x1360px

>>16539832
To this?

>>16539834
This car is faster, better handling, more reliable, and immeasurably safer than the 1970.

>>16539832
>>16539834
A fuckton of in between generations that changed based on the automotive environment, safety regs, fuel regs, etc at the time. Old chargers are cool but new ones are objectively the best they've ever been.

Aiming for mass-appeal while simultaneously not lobbying to stop ineffectual safety regulations.

>>16539834
this is objectively better in every way

looks better too but thats an opinion so it doesnt count

>>16539847
>ineffectual safety regs
While I don't think performance cars should be held to the same standard as regular cars, cars are safer than they've ever been now.

File: 21666-2010-Dodge-Charger.jpg (216KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 800x533px

i agree anon

>>16539834
>>16539863
>tfw prefer the flat doors but the full bar tail light

Suffering.

File: 1967-ford-mustang-fastback.jpg (285KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1600x1200px

>>16539838
>>16539842
I'm talking about lookswise.
At least Ford at least tries to make Mustangs look like the classics of old.

File: 2009-ford-mustang-gt.jpg (492KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 1600x1200px

>>16539885

>>16539888
but this just looks awful and dated

Challenger is the only car to get the retro shit right

>>16539885
That nostalgia shit is the reason the Monaro didn't work in the states.

Besides when you break it down, the Charger just went through natural evolution. The Charger was massive, makes sense for it to become a 4 door sedan. Maybe in the nineties they could've brought back a large 2 door.

>>16539834
You turn around

>>16539885
Trying to make something look like it's from the 60s with modern standards 9 times out of 10 creates an abortion. The Challenger is the only car to do it correctly.

>>16539832
idk OP, the new Charger is an abortion
>>16539919
>makes sense for it to become a 4 door sedan
Fucking how?

File: charger.jpg (342KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 1024x768px

>>16539834

>mfw it could of been this.

>>16539939
Because huge cars tend to have giant doors, better to split the door in half. If you judge cars by door count you're a retard.

>>16539945
that looks awful

>>16539945
>chop top
Fucking boomers
Also literally no reason to sell that and the Challenger side by side. One of them had to have 4 doors.

>>16539947
>better to split the door in half
But it looks like shit. The Chellenger managed to be the same size, look great, and have 2 doors. You sound like the kind of man who should drive a smart forfour.

>>16539978
but the new Charger looks fine

>>16539978
>this autistic over door count
The Challenger exists you mongoloid. Buy that if you must. Same car, just less doors and different sheet metal. Cars in the 60s didn't have to be tall or have thick pillars for safety so they looked sportier. You probably would buy a Scion TC over a G8 GXP.

>>16539978
The new Challenger is smaller than the Charger. The old Challenger was smaller than the old Charger as well.

File: 98633_Front_3-4_Web[1].jpg (44KB, 1000x540px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 1000x540px

>>16539888
face lift ver was better

>>16539978
You do understand how retarded it would be to sell two of the exact same car, right? The door count differentiates them.

File: hqdefault.jpg (26KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x360px

FTFY

>>16539986
>>16539991
>>16540011
It's not just the door count. The new Charger's front facia looks like ass.

>>16539832
honestly they both look like shit

clearly they were both designed with ease of manufacture in mind first and foremost over how the think fucking looks

>>16540053
Sheet metal really isn't that complicated to shape to a car.

>>16539953
looks more like a nigger car than a boomer one to me.

>>16539832
Your pic is a '68. You can tell by the side marker lights (which were '68 only) and the fact it doesn't have a '70 front bumper or door scoops

File: IMG_0127.jpg (125KB, 849x642px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 849x642px

>>16539832
First become a land yacht

File: IMG_0128.jpg (150KB, 1037x679px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1037x679px

>>16540659
Then a subcompact

>>16539832
Fuck those donk wheels and fuck that stance

>>16539859
as long as it is not a track car, whatever the HP figure is or muh performance version its still a road vehicle and has to be made on the same standars

File: 1999-dodge-charger-rt-concept-07.jpg (82KB, 450x363px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 450x363px

Because it started life with this concept.

A dodge intrepid rebrand that was rear wheel drive and had a 4.7L V8 that fed on ethanol.

Then the Germans came in, and took over the development and made Chrysler buy their old E-class chassis to save money. They also forced Chrysler interiors in to plastic junk territory.

File: tmg-article_default_mobile.jpg (14KB, 480x325px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x325px

And since we are on what could have been with out greedy pieces of shit selling out Chrysler, my favorite concept.

The debut of the modern Hemi as well. This was revealed one year after the charger.

File: 1991-chrysler-300-concept-06.jpg (120KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 640x427px

>>16540744
>tfw no 4-door snek

>>16541047
Feels good

>>16539953
>thinking that's a chop-top
Anon, I have some bad news

>>16539885
What color green is that?

>>16539838
Nobody cares

>>16539885
Challenger is a better homage, visually, than the mustang.

>>16541418
It's like ford's take on BRG. It was the color of the Bullitt mustang.

>>16541450
Thanks. Really nice looking. I wonder how the two compare side by side.

>>16541450
I thought the Bullitt was Highland Green