Size Comparison

Discussion in 'Dodge Challenger General Discussions' started by SRT-Tom, Mar 4, 2026.

  1. SRT-Tom

    SRT-Tom Well-Known Member Staff Member Super Moderator Article Writer

    Posts:
    8,242
    Likes Received:
    2,796
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Location:
    southern New Jersey
    We all remember the 2008 photo showing how much larger the new Challenger was compared to the 1970 model.

    Well, our Challengers now seem a lot smaller compared to the huge Charger.

    [​IMG]



    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2026
    Green with Envy likes this.
  2. Moparisto

    Moparisto Full Access Member

    Posts:
    1,281
    Likes Received:
    223
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2022
    Location:
    White Sands
    Huge is good.
    It distances America even further from the Eurosnots and their ever-shriking Prius-tier cars.
    I want to see a 1972-size Chrysler 300 with its vast "sleeps five comfortaby" trunk flaunting its massive ass in the faces of the Tavares-tier Euros.

    Cars need to get bigger in every dimension. Especially in tire sidewall height for better traction and ultimate roadholding, which is why Formula One teams fought lower sidewalls for decades, until the FIA rammed it down their throats.

    Any of the big teams could have ordered up a set of low-sidewall-height tires hot and fresh from the tire manufacturers back before it was a Pirellii monopoly, but none of them did. NONE of them did.

    But, big, beautiful American cars need to make a massive resurgence. The 1972 300 had more storage space in the trunk than many minivans of today, and it was cooler by orders of magnitude.

    Don't like the fuel mileage? Simple solution. Turbodiesel options and list the vehicle as a truck. Oh, wait, the rabid septum-pierced EPA loonies have been brought to heel at long last, so people can get what they want from cars, not have a "rolling vagina" foisted on them by a hostile government.