Dodge Charger v Ford Magnum / Uk journalists' review

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...034362,00.html

Top marks for both.

Discuss.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---
Faster than a speeding Bullitt
Was Hollywood's most famous car duel a fix? Nicholas Rufford and
Andrew Frankel of The Sunday Times got real mean and went for a muscle-car
rerun
View a photo gallery of the duel





(Peter Tarry)


FORD MUSTANG

Two superb stunt drivers, two aggressive cars, lots of clashing
metal and a huge cinematic fireball at the end. The car chase in the 1968
film Bullitt set new standards for the day and was recently voted the best
in film history. A Ford Mustang GT 390 Fastback driven by Lieutenant Frank
Bullitt (Steve McQueen) duels with a Dodge Charger 440 driven by a pair of
assassins down the jagged hills of San Francisco to the soundtrack of
squealing tyres and howling V8 engines.

The scene gave rise to one of the most hotly debated questions
of all time, at least among car buffs, pub bores and, er, motoring
journalists. Could the Mustang, with 50 less horsepower and less torque than
the Charger, really have caught and overtaken the bigger car, forcing it to
career off the road and explode? Some say the Charger had the edge in raw
speed but the Mustang was tighter in the corners. Perhaps.






Others say the weight of an extra person in the Charger slowed
it down and tipped the balance in favour of the Mustang. Maybe.

The only way to answer the question was to get two cars
identical to those in the film and race them head to head. So that's what we
did, right down to the colour (highland green for the Mustang, villain-black
for the Charger).

Naturally, Andrew Frankel's imposing height and menacing
demeanour cast him as the bad guy, but it quickly became apparent that he
had nabbed the better car. The Charger is a classic Yank tank - a two-ton
barge with a 375bhp engine. The Mustang should have the advantage of being
lighter, nimbler and better. But it doesn't because it handles every bit as
badly as the Dodge: the weight is distributed wrongly, the live rear axle
was a liability on the damp Silverstone track, and it's held together by pop
rivets and paint.

You wouldn't expect the Mustang to drive as if it had modern ABS
or traction control. The trouble is it doesn't have much of any other type
of control either. Its suspension feels like a waterbed and it steers like
an old mattress. It was as much as I could do to keep up with Frankel even
though he could barely see out of his sunglasses. Furthermore, had I wanted
to force his more solidly built Charger off the road I would have needed a
demolition crane. The Mustang would have folded like a tin can.

The problem was that the Mustang, which still holds the record
for the fastest-selling model in history, was a quick-sale, pile 'em high
car. Ford could have given Warner Brothers something quicker for the film -
like the 390bhp 427 Fairlane - but it wanted to promote a car with mass
appeal.

In reality the baddies in the Charger (which for the film was
driven by Bill Hickman, the same stuntman behind the wheel in the famous
French Connection car chase) would easily have outrun Bullitt's Mustang
(actually driven by McQueen and Bud Ekins, his old buddy, famous for the
motorbike stunt in The Great Escape).

But once you start confusing reality with fiction you're lost.
There are plenty of anorak websites reminding us of the flaws in Bullitt.
For example, alert viewers will spot that the Charger actually misses by a
long way the line of petrol pumps it was supposed to have hit moments before
the fireball. It also loses an impossible six hubcaps at various stages
during the chase; the same green VW Beetle gets overtaken repeatedly by both
cars; and the Mustang had no wing mirrors when it arrived at the car wash
but had one on the driver's side when it drove away.

Okay, so the Mustang wasn't as good as the scriptwriters made
out but there's another consideration: pose value. This is directly related
to coolness (the precise formula is pose value = coolness x the number of
onlookers). McQueen was cool even though he dressed for the film like a
Liberal Democrat MP in a brown jacket and turtleneck sweater.

Likewise the hastily built Mustang was miles cooler than any
other car of its day - and still is. It was a piece of classic design
translated into metal. To give you an idea of how it scores on the coolness
scale, if the Mustang were at the North Pole, an Aston Martin DB9 would be
on the equator in terms of relative coolness.

Parked outside the Silverstone cafe, everyone wanted to admire
the Mustang. In most cases talking was an excuse to amble up and run their
hands across it. They wanted to sit in the cracked leather driving seat that
feels as though it's padded with straw, and grip the old-fashioned deep dish
steering wheel. How many cars do people want to touch? Not many.

In shooting Bullitt, the film crew used two Stangs; one was
junked afterwards, the other acquired by a Warner employee who sold it. The
new owner resisted all offers to buy it, including one from McQueen. Towards
the end of his life the actor keenly wanted the car back. You can see why.

Terence Steven McQueen would be 75 if he were alive today. He
died aged 50 in a Mexican clinic from a mesothelioma, a rare cancer,
probably caused by inhaling blue asbestos while working on ship repairs in
his younger, itinerant years.

Dying before his time made him even more famous. Today his image
is licensed to at least 29 companies selling everything from sunglasses to
slot machines. It was even hijacked by Ford to posthumously promote the
Puma - a car McQueen would have scorned. He's making more money now for the
McQueen estate than in his prime.

And thanks to his endorsement of the Mustang, the car is still
going strong more than 40 years after its launch. Look into its radiator
grille and you can see McQueen, blue eyes focused straight ahead, a defiant
smile on his lips. The Charger's superior performance seems insignificant
next to that.

Nicholas Rufford

VITAL STATISTICS

Model Mustang GT 390 Fastback
Engine 6392cc (390 cubic inches) V8
Power 325bhp @ 4800rpm
Torque 427 lb ft @ 3200rpm
Transmission Four-speed manual or Select Shift Cruise-O-Matic
Performance 0-60 mph: 6.3sec
Top speed: 120mph approx
Price $2,952.96 new
Verdict Lacklustre performance, useless steering, utterly
fantastic
Rating 5/5




Head-to-head


Page 1 || Page 2

Continued from page one
DODGE CHARGER

Anyone who has seen Bullitt will probably
remember an otherwise forgettable film saved by one outstanding car chase
where a couple of bad guys in a Dodge Charger first pursue and then are
pursued by a San Francisco cop. The Charger came off considerably worse in
the chase and from that day earned itself a place in car history as inferior
to Steve McQueen's Mustang.





Sadly that is a travesty of the truth because
the 1968 Charger marked the zenith of that most fabled of all American
automotive species: the muscle car. Never before or since has America
offered a family of four a combination of such power and beauty as the 68
Charger. By the early 1970s emissions regulations (yes, even then) and
soaring insurance costs had begun to eat into the performance figures and
muscle cars were never quite the same again.

The concept behind the Charger was simple. How
big an engine could Dodge squeeze under the bonnet before the car became so
nose-heavy it was unsteerable? The rest of the car was a relatively simple
design with a purity in its lines that I have always found breathtaking.
Even the 69 and 70 Chargers, which used the same bodies but with added
brightwork, clouded the clarity of the 68's vision, and by 1971 a new and
ugly Charger ended the era for good.

The other problem that came along in the 1970s
was the dratted Dukes of Hazzard which, while making the Charger instantly
recognisable, condemned its image to a cheesy, clichéd, hillbilly hell. It
became known for being good at jumping dry river beds, showing us Catherine
Bach's legs as she fed them through the windows of its welded-up doors, and
really very little else.

The car deserved a fate far better than that.
If you ever see one in the street, take the time to drink in not just its
perfect proportions but also the exquisite detailing on its bodywork. Look
at its blind-eye grille, the side strakes and, if you have access to a high
building, its extraordinary Coke-bottle view from above. This is a car
that's
gorgeous in all three dimensions. Then hope its owner comes along and starts
it up and hope even more that the sound proves it's fitted with the largest
engine available at the time, the 440 Magnum.

Naturally the Bullitt Charger had Magnum
power - 375bhp oozing malevolently from 7.2 litres of Detroit iron. It had
even more torque, some 480 lb ft of the stuff, enough to smoke its tyres
down to the carcass in seconds if you weren't judicious in your use of the
gas. And then there was the noise. Sadly 1968 sound-recording techniques
mean you will never experience the true Charger thunder from the film alone.
If you want to know how badly it's infected me, I once found myself on my
hands and knees, my head positioned next to its two fat tailpipes, while a
colleague spun the rev counter into the red time and gain. The earth shook
and now every time I fail to hear what someone says I wonder if that Charger
had something to do with it.

The thing about the Charger is that it
provides an unforgettable memory. Granted, Nick Rufford attracted more
admiring looks in his Mustang when we raced the cars at Silverstone, but
whatever appeal the Ford possesses

it is undoubtedly slower (as I proved on the
day) and to my mind uglier. The Charger can provide an hour's entertainment
even before you hit the road just by dabbing your foot on and off the gas
pedal.

A few years ago I planned the ultimate road
trip: I'd fly to California, find and buy a Charger, drive it across the
continent, ship it back to Blighty and sell it, the profit covering all my
expenses. The plan failed because all the cars I researched were either
basket cases I didn't want or immaculate examples I couldn't afford.

Secretly I was glad as I knew I would never
have been able to bring myself to sell it on my return, with inevitably
catastrophic consequences for my bank account, marriage and other things I
hold dear. But the point is that, of all the cars that I could have bought,
not for one second did it even occur to me to look for anything other than a
Charger, and a 68 Magnum at that.

I've driven three now, one on the road, this
one on the track and, somewhat peculiarly, a third in a quarry. And I've
learnt a few things about them. Like they're only good to drive on dry sunny
days, not least because if it's wet it will spin its wheels so easily you'll
struggle to get out of your parking space.

But if the weather is fine and the road
straight and open, it will introduce you to a form of automotive enjoyment
you may not have suspected even existed. You'll put your shades on and watch
as

your left arm instinctively finds the window
sill. You'll wish you smoked, if only to provide a few empty Marlboro
packets to spread over the top of the dash. And you'll waft along on just a
trace of throttle, the mighty V8 rumbling ahead of you.

You'll hope that something really quick and
modern has a go at you - a Porsche Boxster is good - and you'll call upon
the Magnum to do its stuff and watch until the German's rapidly shrinking
image in the mirror disappears for good. And as you look forward over that
bonnet, and back over those rear haunches, you'll know that there are
American muscle cars - Mustangs, Camaros and all the other excellent
machines that made 1960s America such a fine place to be a car nut - and
then there are Chargers. A breed apart, a law unto themselves and, quite
simply, the best.

Andrew Frankel

VITAL STATISTICS

Model Dodge Charger 440 Magnum
Engine type 7219cc (440 cubic inches) V8
Power 375bhp @ 4600rpm Torque 480lb ft @
3200rpm
Transmission Three-speed auto or four-speed
manual
Performance 0-60mph: 6.0sec
Top speed: 135mph
Price $3,480 new
Verdict The ultimate American muscle car
Rating 5/5

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> Discuss.

> Never before or since has America offered a family of four a
> combination of such power and beauty as the 68 Charger.

I think that a '70-'72 Challenger looks better than any Charger.

> Sadly 1968 sound-recording techniques mean you will never
> experience the true Charger thunder from the film alone.

Want to hear a big-block? MoParFest (near Kitchener/Waterloo,
Ontario, usually the third week of August).

There's been quite a lot written about the movie Bullitt, and it's
generally accepted that the Charger had to operate below it's full
potential so the Mustang wouldn't get too far left behind. That comes
directly from those involved in the film.

I would have thought that a UK journalist would be ****ing all over
any US muscle car from the 60's because of their poor handling in the
curves.

They are well aware of the limitations, e.g.

"The Mustang should have the advantage of being lighter, nimbler and better.
But it doesn't because it handles every bit as badly as the Dodge: the
weight is distributed wrongly, the live rear axle was a liability on the
damp Silverstone track, and it's held together by pop rivets and paint."

But I think both got seduced by the raw power and wonderful sound.

"But if the weather is fine and the road straight and open, it will
introduce you to a form of automotive enjoyment you may not have suspected
even existed. You'll put your shades on and watch as your left arm
instinctively finds the window sill. You'll wish you smoked, if only to
provide a few empty Marlboro packets to spread over the top of the dash. And
you'll waft along on just a trace of throttle, the mighty V8 rumbling ahead
of you.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"MoPar Man" > wrote in message
...
[...]
> I would have thought that a UK journalist would be ****ing all over
> any US muscle car from the 60's because of their poor handling in the
> curves.

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> But I think both got seduced by the raw power and wonderful sound.
>
> "But if the weather is fine and the road straight and open,
> it will introduce you to a form of automotive enjoyment you
> may not have suspected even existed. You'll put your shades
> on and watch as your left arm instinctively finds the window
> sill.

Try that in a 300C and you'll get a cramp in your neck.

> You'll wish you smoked, if only to provide a few empty
> Marlboro packets to spread over the top of the dash.

Someone's seen a few too many american movies eh?

> And you'll waft along on just a trace of throttle, the
> mighty V8 rumbling ahead of you.

Been there, done that (and should do it again this summer).

You EU's just don't know what it's like to have 6+ liters and a
tourqeflite under the hood.

"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote in
:

> They are well aware of the limitations, e.g.
>
> "The Mustang should have the advantage of being lighter, nimbler and
> better. But it doesn't because it handles every bit as badly as the
> Dodge: the weight is distributed wrongly, the live rear axle was a
> liability on the damp Silverstone track, and it's held together by pop
> rivets and paint."
>
> But I think both got seduced by the raw power and wonderful sound.

This is why "muscle cars" will always be around in one form or another.
They're addicting.

> "But if the weather is fine and the road straight and open, it will
> introduce you to a form of automotive enjoyment you may not have
> suspected even existed. You'll put your shades on and watch as your
> left arm instinctively finds the window sill. You'll wish you smoked,
> if only to provide a few empty Marlboro packets to spread over the top
> of the dash. And you'll waft along on just a trace of throttle, the
> mighty V8 rumbling ahead of you.

Exactly. Not to mention the unbelievable feeling all that torque gives
you. Just fantastic.

Joe


> DAS
>
> For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
> ---
>
> "MoPar Man" > wrote in message
> ...
> [...]
>> I would have thought that a UK journalist would be ****ing all over
>> any US muscle car from the 60's because of their poor handling in the
>> curves.
>
>
>
>

MoPar Man wrote:

> Dori A Schmetterling wrote:
>
>
>>Discuss.
>
>
>>Never before or since has America offered a family of four a
>>combination of such power and beauty as the 68 Charger.
>
>
> I think that a '70-'72 Challenger looks better than any Charger.
>

I respectfully disagree. The Challenger is certainly a beauty, but the
Barracuda is prettier and the Charger is (indeed) the best-proportioned
and most finely detailed of all. EVERYTHING about the Charger styling
just works. The Challenger mostly does, but the recessed grille is a
little wrong. Makes it look like a turtle's beak. Likewise, the 68-70
Coronet just isn't quite as nice as the Charger (and I say this as a '69
Coronet R/T owner!). The recessed headlamps are much better than the
Coronet's exposed ones, and the simple front hood leading edge (viewed
from above) is nicer than the Coronet's more complex hood leading edge.
From the windshield back, they're very similar, but even there the
little differences matter- the Charger's rear pillar "buttresses" are
wonderful, even if they had the aerodymics of a parachute!

And I disagree with the article too- the Charger that replaced the 68-70
models is *not* "ugly." Its not AS pretty, and its not AS good an
implementation as its contemporary Plymouth (the 71-73 GTX, Roadrunner,
and Satellite), but its certainly not ugly!

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> They are well aware of the limitations, e.g.
>
> "The Mustang should have the advantage of being lighter, nimbler and better.
> But it doesn't because it handles every bit as badly as the Dodge: the
> weight is distributed wrongly, the live rear axle was a liability on the
> damp Silverstone track, and it's held together by pop rivets and paint."
>
> But I think both got seduced by the raw power and wonderful sound.

Its not just power and sound, its the whole package. NOTHING drives like
a muscle car. They may have some ill manners, but that's part of what
makes them interesting and fun. And when you're not pushing them, but
are just cruising, its amazing how quiet, smooth, and gentle they
become. They revert to what they started out as- comfy family cars.

MoPar Man wrote:


>
> Been there, done that (and should do it again this summer).
>
Been there, done that.... on my way to work this morning :-)

OK- so it was my 4-door '66 Polara daily driver, but it still has the
440 and Torqueflite :-)

> You EU's just don't know what it's like to have 6+ liters

7.2 Liters.

> and a
> tourqeflite under the hood.
>
>

Amen brother. Amen.

"MoPar Man" wrote in message...
> I would have thought that a UK journalist would be ****ing all over
> any US muscle car from the 60's because of their poor handling in the
> curves.

That's why they have "throttle-on oversteer". :þ