chargercrazy
chargercrazy
chargercrazy

@Shaugh69: Heartclick for you. We must be from the same mold.

@Prawo Jazdy and The Velocity Trumpets: True, True. Their flying dutchman design is terrible and mostly unreliable also. The one at Carowinds (Nighthawk) breaks down all the time — it is the prototype though. The general public loves it for some reason.

@PieX: Looks like a '69 (quad headlamps).

@SerialThriller: That depends on what you want — Do you want the 1970's good looks and the classic status that goes with it (and less weight), or do you want a new car with more horsepower and safety features and more weight? The 1970 will always be a classic. The new one will maybe or maybe not reach classic status.

@William Hawbold: That's not even the real Eleanor . . . That's the Hollywooded up version.

@laxmax613: Winner on the first reply.

@tonyola: Only 1335 built with 383 4-barrel and the 4-speed.

@clinto: As an owner of a '70 Charger 500, I'm a bit biased. If I had to order my preference of styling for the 2nd gen. Charger, it would be the '70 first, '68 second, and '69 third. The '69 being third mostly because I'm sick of seeing General Lee replicas. I think the '68 front is the cleanest, but I don't like

@Dumbellster: Pontiac Star Chief. I guess it was too much like the Bel Air hood ornament.

@HammerheadFistpunch: We just had this come up during a safety topic at work . . . those 3 or 4 inches of brake dive are the real killers.

@duurtlang: Say what you want about Walker, but it is still one of the most unintentional comedic shows of all time. Just ask Conan.

@FoxCMK: I second this along with the Magnum listed above. Mopar has one that works because they put it in the Challenger. Put it in the Charger too!