Repair-It

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FRWRTvCx7kQ

He likes it. What's interesting is I think his LS3 Miata is about as fast.

Fun fact: Tom is from PA. Apparently the cool car people come from PA...

I don't really know why everyone wants to hate on this car. Sure it isn't a track star, but realistically, if you like the 60's and early 70's muscle cars, this is the epitome of what that era was trying to be, but way better. Look at the old Charger/Challenger prices today. It is insane what those cars are going for considering how much better this car is. And yes, 707 HP from the factory is awesome. If you like American Muscle, I don't really know what there is not to like, and if you don't like American Muscle, then fine, you won't like this, but you probably don't like the old Challenger, GTO, Trans Am, Camaro, Charger, Road Runner etc. so why should you even be looking at this? That is like a Muscle car fan doing a review of a Toyota Corolla. There is nothing wrong with a Corolla, if you want something that has cheap, fuel efficient, and dependable as your primary criteria. I guess I just don't get why all "sport" or "performance" cars have to be "track" cars. 707 HP for 60 K is awesome. I wish GM would put something out for this niche market of drag, muscle, retro style American Muscle cars. And yes, I do think the Gen 5 Camaro did a good job of this, but not the Gen 6. The Gen 6 is more of a sleek sports car than a Muscle car as far as aesthetics.

I agree with you. I just never considered the typical 2 door muscle car as the pinnacle of the automobile. But if you do, then you are going to really like the Hellcat. I do, too, but there are many other cars I'd rather own before a Hellcat.

I will say Tom makes a compelling case. I grew up in the 80s and not in the woods. Muscle was nowhere to be found in my childhood. I'm lucky I like V8s as much as I do.

I just never considered the typical 2 door muscle car as the pinnacle of the automobile.

The thing is, you don't need to to appreciate this car if you can understand the idea of car segments, and can accept the idea that cars in different segments serve different purposes. None of that should be very argumentative. This is a car that is in one segment, and in my opinion, is pretty cool to come from the factory, considering the meager competition or existence at all in this segment. No car you ever look at will be as fast on the track as an F1 car. That doesn't mean that you disregard all other sports cars as inadequate. I guess I am just tired of everything needing to be track worthy. The giant cars of the past were awesome, but would fail miserably on the track, does that mean they aren't cool for their purpose?

In my world, I can like an 85 Monte Carlo SS, a 2005 STS, an 80's full sized Blazer or full sized truck, a 2010 Tahoe, a 2013 Silverado, a 2013 Camaro 1LE, a 69 Camaro, a 70 Monte Carlo, an 89 Cadillac Brougham, a late 70's Trans Am, an 89 Z-24 and throw in an IROC and GN for kicks(Yes there are others also). I wouldn't compare each of these to each other because they serve different purposes (yes there is some competing cars in the same segments here but there is a pretty big variety).

Each of these has strengths but if you track tested them, only the Camaro 1LE would win (without mods). That doesn't make me like the others less.

billgiacheri wrote:I guess I am just tired of everything needing to be track worthy.

Obviously I agree with you in spirit. However, many of today's great vehicles are great on AND off the track. Nowhere have I said that everything needs to drive like a Lotus Elise (or Ariel Atom). But when a car that doesn't fall apart on the track is also comfortable on the street, I want both, in whatever size/weight package we are talking about. Fortunately, this is not unrealistic as many cars have demonstrated that this is possible.

The Challenger/Hellcat is a modern interpretation of the traditional muscle car formula. And I appreciate it for that. I just don't find it to be the ultimate car, like I think I am supposed to (as a car guy). The reason I feel that way, in part, is because the traditional muscle car formula was about the cheapest way to go fast. Show me a fast 2 door car and I'll show you a 4 door that's faster. There is no need for compromise and, this is my opinion, I think the aesthetic attraction to the traditional muscle car shape is borne from the subconscious assumption that it must be high performance (i.e. anything with more doors and weight is only for getting groceries). I reject all that.

Let me offer another hypothesis: shapes that look fast only look fast because they are associated with actual fast configurations of the platform (alternately, they may look similar to something else that was fast). The 1970 Chevelle was offered with a 250 cid inline 6. The Chevelle wouldn't be cool to own if there wasn't an SS with a 454 also available (and famously quick, too). But since I know you can now get performance in any size/shape, I have no real use for something that I would consider a compromise.

A good example of my theory is the Mustang II. It looked like a Mustang, no bones about it. But it was never offered in a high performance trim (a wheezing 2 bbl 302 does not count). And because of that, people do not like them. If they made a Mustang II with a 460 in 1974, I guarantee people would look back a lot differently on those cars.

This platform was shared with the Ford Pinto and Mercury Bobcat. If you think that proves the platform was lame, let me clue you in on some truth. The Foxbody was a shared platform between the following cars:
Ford Fairmont
Ford LTD
Ford Thunderbird
Mercury Capri
Mercury Zephyr
Mercury Marquis
Mercury Cougar
Lincoln Continental
Lincoln Mark VII

Hardly any of those were known for performance, but because of the SVO and later 5.0 HO, the Foxbody is remembered (and most importantly, viewed) as something cool. Everyone has had a positive experience with a late 80s 302 Mustang, and so it was aspirational. This would not have been the case if Ford only offered the N/A Lima 2.3 and maybe the Vulcan V6.

Performance plays a HUGE role in how we perceive certain designs.

Performance does play a huge role in how we perceive designs. Historical performance and design also adds to that perception. The Muscle car has had a specific "look" since the 60's. The Hellcat is today's iteration. I am just saying I wish more companies did this. Generally, since the 60's, these cars have been 2 door. Dodge made a 4 door for you also, the Hellcat Charger.

I agree the Challenger is the only thing that anyone makes that fits this formula. And yes, between the two, the Charger is what I would actually want. But I guess what I was trying to say is that I find what happened in the 60s in terms of styling and performance to be irrelevant in 2015 (unless you follow Barrett Jackson and are actually trying to buy one). The rest of the industry has moved on with their own styling and performance contributions. Which is why it doesn't bother me that the Chevy SS doesn't resemble something from that decade.

I don't disagree with you, I just think that the 60's stumbled on something. Cars were fun. They were loud, they smelled like gas and had personality. I think that today's refinement takes away from some of the fun and personality. I think the Hellcat is trying to bring some of that back, but with a more modern and safer platform. I think GM is catching up with the dual mode exhaust option. You can find plenty of boring cars of today that would beat a '68 Camaro as far as performance, but that isn't the whole story of the Camaro. I know that this is counterintuitive to cars and wanting performance, but there is a fun factor also. The Monte Carlo is a perfect example, and why it is referred to as the last GM Muscle car even though it didn't have much power. They were made loud and commonly upgraded to bigger engines. What I am talking about is very similar to truck modding/hotrodding. Jacking up a truck and dropping a 454 in it with monster tires is all counter intuitive to track performance, but it looks and sounds awesome.