Car pics too cool not to share
- Thread starter Squatch
- Start date
The 1970 Dodge Challenger R/T 440 Super Track Pak was a high-performance muscle car produced by the Dodge division of Chrysler Corporation. It was powered by a 440 cubic inch V8 engine that produced 390 horsepower and 490 lb-ft of torque, and was equipped with a four-speed manual transmission.
Starting up this ride is an experience in itself. As the engine comes to life, the sound of the V8 fills the air with a deep, throaty roar that demands attention. The 440 produces 390 horsepower and 490 lb-ft of torque, and it’s clear from the sound that this car means business.
Taking a walk around the Challenger R/T 440, it’s hard not to be impressed by its classic design. The long hood and short deck give it a distinctive look that has stood the test of time. The Super Track Pak option adds unique side stripes and a rear spoiler that enhance the car’s already sharp appearance. Up front, the iconic Dodge split grille is flanked by four round headlights and a prominent R/T badge. The 15-inch Rallye wheels, wrapped in BF Goodrich Radial T/A tires, complete the classic muscle car look.
Inside, the Challenger R/T 440 is equally impressive. The bucket seats are upholstered in black vinyl, and the dash features a tachometer and a 150-mph speedometer. The pistol grip shifter is a classic touch that harkens back to the heyday of American muscle cars.
Driving the Challenger R/T 440 is an experience like no other. With the Super Track Pak option, the car is a formidable performer both on the street and at the drag strip. The heavy-duty suspension and power front disc brakes provide excellent handling and stopping power, while the limited-slip differential and 3.54:1 rear axle ratio ensure that power is delivered to the wheels smoothly and efficiently.
The R/T version (R/T: Road & Track) Special Edition with vinyl roof shown in this photo was powered by a 6.4 liter V8 with 290 hp as standard; the most powerful, optionally available engine for the R/T Special Edition was the seven-liter Hemi V8 with 425 hp.
This engine powered not only the Challenger but also the Super Bee, the Coronet R/T and the Charger R/T – and was optionally available in each case. Through its leading role in the movie ‘Vanishing Point’, the Challenger R/T, of which just under 20,000 units were built, became a cult car.
In this video we have a beautiful one, sounding awesome, restored to original, great paint. Watch and enjoy:
Awesome Dad Bought His Son A 1969 Nova SS 396 Street Rod For His 16 Birthday..
https://www.doginmylife.com/2023/03...FFeHPW3zrllom_kccxitnZmLY3xpc1zNMLDRFifOZTnDU
Niiiice! The automatic is unfortunate, but with that said, they chose a good one. And because you know I'll say it: NO TECHNOLOGY!!!!!
The Chrysler 300 “letter series” models have always held a special appeal that transcends Mopar circles. Built in five main generations spanning 11 models from 1955–1965, with all but the final model being designed under the auspices of the great Virgil Exner, these represented Chrysler’s best effort to build a car that was world-beating in terms of technology, cutting-edge style, and performance.
This is on full display in the Chrysler 300E of 1959. Its design is arresting; its tailfins push the envelope in terms of size and were towering, even by late-1950s standards, yet they nevertheless contribute to glamorous, well-balanced whole. Performance, too, was boundary-pushing. In place of the 300D’s heavier and more complicated Hemi, the 300E uses a 380-horsepower, 413-cubic-inch “Golden Lion” wedge-head V-8 crowned by dual four-barrel carburetors. Those who have not yet sampled this model from behind the wheel will be pleasantly surprised—a 300E in proper tune is a truly fast machine once underway, and not merely by old-car standards.
This is on full display in the Chrysler 300E of 1959. Its design is arresting; its tailfins push the envelope in terms of size and were towering, even by late-1950s standards, yet they nevertheless contribute to glamorous, well-balanced whole. Performance, too, was boundary-pushing. In place of the 300D’s heavier and more complicated Hemi, the 300E uses a 380-horsepower, 413-cubic-inch “Golden Lion” wedge-head V-8 crowned by dual four-barrel carburetors. Those who have not yet sampled this model from behind the wheel will be pleasantly surprised—a 300E in proper tune is a truly fast machine once underway, and not merely by old-car standards.
To The EXtreme, Bad’ss Street Legal Blown ’66 Chevelle SS 20LBS Of Boost..
In 1957, Oldsmobile marked its 60th anniversary, having been established as the Olds Motor Vehicle Company in Lansing, Michigan in August 1897. Ransom Olds had been experimenting with engines and self-propelled vehicles for almost 10 years prior to that. The Oldsmobile Division of General Motors, one of the original companies of GM founded in 1908, renamed the entry-level series to “Golden Rocket 88” to commemorate the occasion.
The 1957 Golden Rocket Oldsmobile was fitted with the desirable J-2 triple-carburetor option, which was originally designed for NASCAR competition. However, NASCAR Chief Bill France prohibited the use of this option, claiming that it was not a production option. Oldsmobile responded by releasing the J-2 for public sale in the middle of the year. Approximately 2,500 cars were sold with this option, but knowledgeable tuners could purchase the parts and install them themselves. With the J-2 package, the engine’s horsepower increased from 277 to 312 brake horsepower.
The 1957 Golden Rocket Oldsmobile was fitted with the desirable J-2 triple-carburetor option, which was originally designed for NASCAR competition. However, NASCAR Chief Bill France prohibited the use of this option, claiming that it was not a production option. Oldsmobile responded by releasing the J-2 for public sale in the middle of the year. Approximately 2,500 cars were sold with this option, but knowledgeable tuners could purchase the parts and install them themselves. With the J-2 package, the engine’s horsepower increased from 277 to 312 brake horsepower.
Oh wow. Mostly to protect the kid (but also the car) I wouldn't think giving this to a 16 year old would be "awesome".
I get what you're saying, but it really depends on the individual kid. I had free rein to a handful of old cars when I was a teen, including a Trans Am and '72 454 Corvette. I actually took my driver licensing test in the Corvette. (thinking about that, I wonder what was going through the riding agent's head getting in a rumbling and shaking Corvette with a wiry wild-eyed 16-year-old
) I like power and speed, but I've never wrecked any of the old cars. I think that's because I was taught to respect and drive them differently. I'd guess this kid has been taught similarly. Also, I'm betting this Nova will not be his primary car.On the flip side, I’ve met some dumbasses who should be condemned to public transportation. They weren’t even safe enough for a moped.
OP
I get what you're saying, but it really depends on the individual kid. I had free rein to a handful of old cars when I was a teen, including a Trans Am and '72 454 Corvette. I actually took my driver licensing test in the Corvette. (thinking about that, I wonder what was going through the riding agent's head getting in a rumbling and shaking Corvette with a wiry wild-eyed 16-year-old
On the flip side, I’ve met some dumbasses who should be condemned to public transportation. They weren’t even safe enough for a moped.
As I responded to @Wildman's post with a
, I was also thinking about this issue. It would be nucking futs to place a 16 year old kid behind the wheel of something like that Nova. However, as @BlueC pointed out, it truly does depend on the kid. I think we're so used to dealing with numbnuts out on the road that we sometimes forget that there are some exceptional young people still out there, and perhaps this kid is one of them. It's not necessarily a choice I would have made, but then again, I'm not the kid's father.
I thought the same thing when I first say the article. Once you read a little more it sort of makes sense.
I get what you're saying, but it really depends on the individual kid. I had free rein to a handful of old cars when I was a teen, including a Trans Am and '72 454 Corvette. I actually took my driver licensing test in the Corvette. (thinking about that, I wonder what was going through the riding agent's head getting in a rumbling and shaking Corvette with a wiry wild-eyed 16-year-old
On the flip side, I’ve met some dumbasses who should be condemned to public transportation. They weren’t even safe enough for a moped.
I did a LOT of stupid shit @ 16 but never wrecked any of my rigs. Went in the ditch a few times due to speed & rain. Blew out a front brake line from age & slamming down on the pedal.
As I responded to @Wildman's post with a
Even though I've tried to teach my daughter to be a good driver I don't know that I'd turn her loose in a high HP rig.
OP
Ditto! In my '67 Dart GT. Blew through the T-intersection, and into a snowbank. Spent Christmas morning in a wrecking yard in some little Podunk town, hooked to the back of a wrecker, swapping out brake lines in the snow. Ahhhh, the memories...
Ditto! In my '67 Dart GT. Blew through the T-intersection, and into a snowbank. Spent Christmas morning in a wrecking yard in some little Podunk town, hooked to the back of a wrecker, swapping out brake lines in the snow. Ahhhh, the memories...
Going to Germany at 18 was a GOOD thing for me. I didn't have any "fast" cars to really enjoy the autobahn but I did get to drive on it as fast as I could.
Ditto! In my '67 Dart GT. Blew through the T-intersection, and into a snowbank. Spent Christmas morning in a wrecking yard in some little Podunk town, hooked to the back of a wrecker, swapping out brake lines in the snow. Ahhhh, the memories...
I've been through a handful of wrecks, single vehicle and almost always my fault. Being young, dumb and a little wild, I liked to go too fast, but never in one of the old cars. I may have experience hitting a tree or two, a culvert, and/or a fire hydrant. Those don't always spray water like in the movies, but they are stout little bastards.
They can really do a job on a quarter panel.
'68 W300, 318, 4 speed
Interesting that this 68 has marker lights or reflectors?
Interesting that this 68 has marker lights or reflectors?
I looked into this last time we talked about it thinking along the lines of commercial or special purpose vehicle, but I think I just had an idea and found something to back it up. I think with these Dodges, and maybe some other vehicles, it simply comes down to the build date of the specific vehicle.
Here's what I found;
"Side Marker Lights
Effective January 1, 1968, all passenger cars built for sale in the United States were required to display amber lights or reflectors on the sides of front fenders, and red lights or reflectors on the sides of rear quarter panels.
Standard No. 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, Trailers, (except pole trailers and trailer converter dollies), and Motorcycles (Effective 1-1-68 for vehicles 2,032 mrn (80 or more inches) in width and effective 1-1-69 for all other vehicles). This standard specifies requirements for original and replacement lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. Its purpose is to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes, by providing adequate illumination of the roadway, and by enhancing the conspicuity of motor vehicles on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness, or other conditions of reduced visibility.
Confused yet? Basically, what this says regarding side marker lights is that effective on all vehicles made on January 1, 1968 or later, amber side marker lamps or reflectors that can be seen in profile are required to be included near the front of the vehicle, and red side marker lamps or reflectors that can be seen in profile are required to be included near the rear of the vehicle.
Initially, the regulation for 1968-1969 required lights or reflectors, which is why some cars in 1968 had amber lights in front and red reflectors in the rear (1968 Ford Motor Company cars, for example). Chrysler vehicles used lights in 1968 and reflectors (on most models) for 1969. This regulation was later amended to require lights and reflectors on all vehicles made on January 1, 1970 or later, which is why most lines had changes to their side marker lights for the 1970 model year.
The regulation required that the side-facing lights and/or reflectors make the vehicle's presence, position, and direction of travel clearly visible to other drivers approaching the vehicle from the side, or at any angle where the headlamps or tail lamps of the vehicle being overtaken cannot be viewed. In other words, other drivers should be able to see your car in darkness regardless of the direction from which they are approaching, and from the color of the light or reflector, be able to tell at a glance which direction your vehicle is facing or moving.
The amended regulation for January 1, 1970 also included the requirement that the parking lamps remain lit during headlamp operation, and that side marker lamps be illuminated whenever the vehicle's parking and tail lamps are on. The parking light revision to the regulation was to make vehicles with a non-functioning headlamp more noticeable to other drivers, and lessened the chance that it might be mistaken for a motorcycle by oncoming traffic.
In 1970-1971, most Ford Motor Company vehicles were equipped with flashing side marker lights that corresponded with the turn signals flashing in the direction of a turn. This was eliminated for the most part for 1972, although many General Motors cars utilize a flashing front (amber) marker light to correspond with turn signals to this day."
I get what you're saying, but it really depends on the individual kid. I had free rein to a handful of old cars when I was a teen, including a Trans Am and '72 454 Corvette. I actually took my driver licensing test in the Corvette. (thinking about that, I wonder what was going through the riding agent's head getting in a rumbling and shaking Corvette with a wiry wild-eyed 16-year-old
On the flip side, I’ve met some dumbasses who should be condemned to public transportation. They weren’t even safe enough for a moped.
I'm sure you're right about that. There are likely a few new drivers who would both appreciate a car like that and keep out of trouble. But probably not too many and as you say the are more than few adults who should just take the bus
.By the way, I would include my 16 year old self in the group that shouldn't get that Nova. I had several unplanned high speed offroad adventures as a teenager. Fortunately I grew up in the midwest and only a few rows of corn were injured. More dangerous for me were motorcycles. People on bikes always worry about other drivers (and rightly so). However, every bike wreck I was ever in back then was a "single vehicle accident" and related to some sort of fooling around
.