My blog covering reviews and thoughts on AutoWeek. I've been enjoying AutoWeek since the early seventies and I still stop everything to read it cover-to-cover when it arrives in the mail.
From Autoweek, July 18 1994. A Tennessee Corvette tuning company named Air Dynamics built this prototype of a mid-engine sports car that they intended to put in limited production. Owner John Watson intended to build about 6 per year at $100k apiece in 1994 dollars. Initially, the SHO engine was stock (225 HP, under-rated), although a 300-HP version was planned later. The Wraith II weighed 2600 pounds and was composite-bodied. It uses 18" wheels and rides on a 100 inch wheelbase for a total of 179 inches in length.
Apparently none were built beyond this prototype. However, the basis for this prototype was the "Turbo Interceptor" from the movie "The Wraith" (a very early Charlie Sheen film). John Watson had planned to offer that car as a kit for $70k, so apparently the $100k "II" model included the engine and was complete. The Wraith from the movie of the same name is shown to the upper left.
Now that the press is free to discuss their test drives of the Challenger last month, we get the full story about a miserably cold day at the Motorsport Ranch south of Fort Worth. What a coincidence, we were there the week before the press event and again just last weekend!
Follow the link above to AutoWeek and the full story.
Now here's the bad news: despite a wheelbase 4 inches shorter than a Charger, the car weights within 20 pounds of it at 4,140 pounds. With a very similar weight distribution of 55.6/44.4 fr/rr. That's why 425 horses only yields a 4.9 0-60. It takes that much HP to move this much car.
Compare and contrast to the porky Shelby with it's antique solid axle at 3980 pounds (coupe) and with 58.5% of it's weight over it's nose. Not only is it an antique, it has arthritis built in.
It will be interesting to see what the similarly-sized Camaro weighs! Like the Challenger, it will also have an IRS - although it will use struts up front. And, all of it's engines use aluminum blocks so figure on 150 pounds or more difference right there.
I can tell you without a doubt that the Challenger won't work on the roadcourse track. We've had Chargers and 300C SRT8s at events before and they just don't work - too large, too much mass, too heavy. But the Challenger is a handsome car, competent enough for quick street driving, and has appealing options. Veyr few will be made ultimately... and it's very hard to imagine much more HP coming down the road (undoubtledly the SRT engine will someday get the phased cam technology that the base "Hemi" will get in 2009). This would be a good buy now.
AutoWeek, along with other media outlets, broke their agreement with Chrysler Press and published two pictures of the production Challenger. They were supposed to be embargoed until the Chicago auto show next month. This is how print media works... the paradigm obviously needs some latitude for internet media.
Follow the link above to the article in AutoWeek to get both pictures and the details.
Also, AutoWeek accepted my review of their article and it's copied below.
Nice job Chrysler
It's good to see that the Challenger is a serious entry from a technical standpoint. All independent suspension - instead of the stone-age Mustang’s low-brow solid axle. Double a-arms up front, instead of the cheap strut used by the Camaro and Mustang. And nice multi-piston Brembos at all 4 corners, instead of just up front. Not that this will be a serious handling car - that award will probably go to the Camaro (again). But it won't be a poor-handling throwback like the Mustang, especially the porky Shelby with 58% of its 4000 pounds over the front wheels. Ridiculous.
So even if it doesn't pull notable numbers it will still have reasonable dynamics and good overall balance. That's far more than you could say about the original "muscle cars". Although like the original Challenger, it'll be the biggest of the muscle coupes. That's disappointing to me but it's probably the best that can be done on the current iteration of this platform.
It's also nice to see the styling is clean and mature - Chrysler didn't see the need to dress it up with kid-stuff buffoonery. The Challenger shows us that a car can project mature performance without having to load up on flash. I would, however, have liked to have seen it done without the fake hood scoops. Even if they could somehow be connected, they can't be efficient where they’re located and wouldn’t provide any measurable benefit.
Because so few Challengers will be built, I expect the dealers to gouge us on the pricing at first. Given the sales figures of the typical Chrysler dealer, they can certainly use the money. It’s also nice to see that we can have the heritage without the baggage. I'm speaking of Shelby, who of course had almost no involvement with the car bearing his name. Technically, his name adds about as much substance as his charity is reported to have. His name is there solely to add appeal to a certain mindset and drive sales volume across the Mustang line. Snake oil.
I’d place this car in the middle between the Camaro on the high end (technical ability and value) and the Mustang on the low end (weak ability and little interest to a driving enthusiast). Make your choice while you can; given the CAFÉ laws and increasing focus on emissions you won’t see this size car or these engines much longer. The cars themselves will still exist, but on far more appropriately-sized platforms and with far more efficient engines.
The Mini *is* the defacto "2002" of our times. The BMW 1 series is what the 3-series should have remained: a reasonably sized 4-place family centered around a lithe enthusiasts coupe instead of the bloated heavyweight (although still desirable to a different demographic) it has gradually become (with brakes that fail after only a few fast laps. Ridiculous!). While I've always liked the Mini a lot (and have driven it at speed around a track), the latest one doesn't work for me. I've seen them, I've driven one, I don't like them anymore. The last car was cute, with features that were sometimes odd but were always endearing in a British way. The new car just goes too far... the over-exaggeration (particularly the speedometer) is a pantomime of the last car. The poor usability of the dashboard is past the point of quirky-but-acceptable. The radio is absurd. And I was absolutely aghast at the Works Mini at the LA show last week. The fake hood scoop of the Cooper is bad enough... it is counter to what I thought this car stood for. The wide assortment of additional fake scoops and vents on the Works package ruins it. That was the final straw for me. While I wouldn't have bought the last car without the Works package... I wouldn't buy this car with or without it. I'd like to see a total interior redesign. And I'd like Mini to keep in mind that while we appreciate the unique personality of the car, enthusiasts still want function over form.
And now my response to him: Fine Dutch, except that Volkswagen, Audi, Bugatti, Lamborghini, BMW, Rolls, Mini, and heck even Ferrari all amortize costs across multiple marques. That's the only way to compete in a global economy, the only way to compete technically, and the only way to drive down service and support costs. The problem is the way the sharing was done, not the fact that it was done. Jaguar and Lincoln touted the commonality of the DEW98 (premium) and CDW162 (lowly) platforms in all the initial press discussions. Even Jaguar outright denying it later on couldn't erase the negative impressions in the British owners mindset and press. They stuck. And technically they were much the same cars, despite creatively rounding 4.0 down to 3.9 or adding temporarily-exclusive variable cam timing. There needed to be much greater differentiation underneath. Another example: the new Audi TT is built off the lowly Golf chassis (with significant updates, but still the starting point) and you don't see Audi talking about that. A little more aluminum, different styling, and presto you can charge considerably more. That's how the business works.
Leave it to AutoWeek to have the type of factual balanced reporting that is often missing in the "first drive" reports of the big three monthly magazines. This article (follow link above) is the most factual and balanced of them all to date. We find many new interesting facts... such as the fact that the new engine doesn't have or need a balance shaft (an important consideration when looking to build up an engine).
Keep an eye on AutoWeek; this Friday the 27th their online site will have a second article covering the Evo, with more exclusive news and facts.
