Advertising Last completed movie pages 1968 Dodge Charger 440 R/T Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2006-08-15 20:11 |
The 2nd best muscle car ever made, i think this car is beautiful although the Ford Mustang is better |
|
◊ 2006-08-16 06:54 |
No, the Plymouth Cuda or the Plymouth GTX or Roadrunner was the better muscle car. |
|
◊ 2006-08-16 07:41 |
This car is a 1968, not a 1969. |
|
explorer4x4 ◊ 2006-08-16 07:49 |
I agree. But for me, its Mustang, Gran Torino and then Charger. But the old Camaros weren't that bad either. |
|
◊ 2006-08-21 19:50 |
Of course no muscle car could ever beat a ustang, although i dont really like the 2005 edition, i would rather have a Skyline R32 than a 2005 edition Ford Mustang GT |
|
◊ 2007-01-15 04:57 |
No muscle car ever beat a Mustang? Hate to break it to ya, but the Mustang was one of the weakest of the muscle cars, with the exception of a few special editions here and there, and there are a bunch of other muscle cars that outsold the Mustang by a long shot. Don't get me wrong, they are nice cars, I own one, and drive it almost every day, but no one can say nothing ever beat a Mustang...my Road Runner will clean my Mustang's clock anyday. |
|
◊ 2007-06-10 07:35 |
Mustangs are the best no doubt |
|
◊ 2007-09-11 10:36 |
With all the people that used to know that owned Dodge Charger's they all said that it was really difficult to keep the car running. I don't know I never owned a Dodge Charger and I never worked on a Dodge Charger. But there were people that said this was a hard car to maintain. Does it actually take skill, I mean real skill to keep a Charger running? |
|
◊ 2007-09-14 19:25 |
This belongs to Hammond. He also owns a Bullitt style Mustang GT-390. |
|
◊ 2007-10-11 08:15 |
A lot of old Mopars including Chargers, Roadrunners, 'Cudas were hard to keep running. They went mostly for engine size and beastly horsepower, but somewhere in the mix, quality was sacrificed. When properly tuned up and regularly maintained, they're a dream. |
|
◊ 2008-06-30 22:09 |
this isnt owned by hamster, his is black and lime |
|
◊ 2009-04-17 08:33 |
well...its definitely not like have a new car where a light will come on to tell you if somethings wrong. but per say if you had one sitting around for 40 years and did nothing too it, then yes, it would be difficult. get some basic topical parts like a new intake manifold and an easy to tune edelbrock carburetor, and theyre pretty easy. but dont get me wrong, the clearance issues on some of the big block engines, like with the hedders on my 69, is a pain in the ass. but with some blood, grease, and patience, it pays off. and i dont have to pay anyone to over charge me on repair or lube/filter changes. go mopar. |
|
◊ 2009-07-20 15:44 |
No Mopars are NOT hard to maintain...I started driving in the 1990\'s my first car was a 68 Chrysler 300 with a 440,drove it 70,000 miles and the car had over 240,000 when I bought it,it ran 13.16 in the 1/4 stock 440 t.n.t 3.23 gears,130-135 compression across the board.I then bought a 1969 Charger 383 4bbl put over 200,000 miles on it never any problems,best 1/4 mile then 13.73 with 3.23 rear axle,changed cam,heads ran 12.70\' .With Mopars especially big blocks they have so much power they run when the engine is down 2 cyl.I replaced the points every year,make sure your choke on the car works and it starts like a new fuel injected car.I never had any problems with those cars.I am a mechanic and worked at a Honda dealership in 1999 bought a new Prelude then,and my old Mopars actually required less maintenance than the new Honda,every 30,000 km the Honda required a new timing belt ect..Old mopars you can drive them hard and to the ground and never do anything but add gas..The only Mopars you may be thinking of are a 1966-1969 426 HEMI they required a valve adjustment every 30,000 miles because of the solid lifter camshaft,but that was easy to do and for 550 h.p actual it was worth it.In 1970-71 the went to a hydrolic cam ,By the way I come from a long list of classic Mopar owners/mechanics so,I know how good they are..p.s the Prelude trans blew after 40,000 and I started my own shop and only drive Mopars now.I still have my Charger and a few more Mopars. No they drive and start like a new fuel injected car. Change the points once a year and will never let you down or better add a mopar orange box electronic ignition,and never touch it again. Make sure your choke is working this would make it hard to start when cold if not working properly. Those are the only issues any old car has most people as on this blog dont know this,now you do.. |
|
◊ 2009-08-09 20:39 |
The vehicle details for BHJ 99F are: Date of Liability 01 12 2009 Date of First Registration 12 08 1988 Year of Manufacture 1968 Cylinder Capacity (cc) 7200CC CO2 Emissions Not Available Fuel Type Petrol Export Marker Not Applicable Vehicle Status Licence Not Due Vehicle Colour GREEN Vehicle Type Approval null |
|
◊ 2012-10-15 08:48 |
I hate it when people try to compare Mustangs to real cars. Just by letting those words come out of your mouth you are telling everybody that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. The Dodge Charger is a muscle car, the Challenger is a pony car. The Ford Gran Torino is a muscle car, the Mustang is a pony car. The Chevrolet Chevelle is a muscle car, the Camaro is a pony car. The Pontiac GTO is a muscle car, the Firebird is a pony car. Mustangs are not muscle cars, they are pony cars. Unless you are talking about very specific types of V8 Mustangs from certain production years you are mistaken in referring to a Mustang as a muscle car. That being said, in my experience the only people who like Mustangs are people who don\'t have a clue about cars in general. Learn the difference between a muscle car and a pony car before you open your uneducated mouth again fool. Anyone whose favorite car is the Mustang is either a woman or a homo. Men ride horses, women ride ponies, and knowledge is the only way to keep yourself from sounding like an idiot. |
|
◊ 2013-04-25 05:49 |
I agree with you. People like mustang because they're just popular but not the best. Mustang Engines like Cobra Jet and Boss only produced 335 to 375 hp. while chargers has 440 six-pack 390 hp and the infamous 426 Hemi 425 hp |
|
◊ 2013-12-27 20:52 |
I agree 100% The 68 Charger is more muscle car than any Ford ever built! No insults intended here, but the Mustang was never a muscle car, although along the way, a few came out that would light up the tires :-) If however, you look at a 1971 Marauder x100, that is a muscle car in my eyes. Sadly, Ford didn't sell (m)any of those. I would "blame" the undeserved popularity of the Mustang, partly on Fords clever advertising, but mostly on the fact that people in general are desperate to feel "accepted". Very few ppl want to swim upstream when it comes to "taste", when it's so much more comfy, to just relax and go with the flow (also known as "The dead fish technique", or "The leaf in the wind"), as to actually have your own true fact-based opinion, takes a lot from you. Reading, asking questions, trying various stuff, maybe even owning a few cars, which all costs money, or consumes valuable "let's go with the flow-time". I think that most ppl, even if they jump in the "Mainstream river", want to express that they like something too, many go with what's safe, and wont make them stand out! Strawberry marmalade = Safe Football = Safe Blue Jeans = Safe Elvis = Safe Mustang = Safe (Mopar) Greetings from Denmark |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
