>>20385308nice ride there bud.....
MOPF has always been my favorite thing
>>20385308Looks like shit.
>those wheel archesew
surprisingly not that pifgat
>>20385308>we bullitt now
>>20385308looks cool but I'm not sure what I'm apologizing for
>>20385410>>20385439>>20385564great post there my fellow hip contrarians
MOPAR or no car
>>20385308now that's a car I can drive
>>20385570sorry about your bad taste
>>20385570I don't think it's a contrarian opinion to think that abomination is ugly.
>>20385553Side by side with an origonal relly highlights how shit the restomod looks
>>20385308Looks like a charger effed a camaro.
>>20385308>American cars are pigf->3200lbs>1200hp
>>20385853Dyno queens are shit too enjoy the cant turn shitboat.
>>20385853>entirely custom chassis and carbon fiber body>still 3,200PIGFAT
>>20385895pretty light for a muscle car
>>20385895Chargers are full sized cars. They're huge.
>>20385919Sure, but still pretty bad all things considering.
>>20385934But they're fun though
>>20385553that does make the proportions a little weirdtaller car on the right looks narrower than it is
>>20385938Fun is subjective so it doesn't mean anything. I think 90's Civics are more fun than big block muscle cars.
>>20385946all cars are fun desu and muscle cars definitely fill a certain type of fun
>>20385308this'd be pretty sweet if those rims weren't so FUCKOFF HUGE
>>20386787Fuck your taste is terribad.
>>20386787t. boomer who thinks nothing should be made over 15"
>>20386787Yup..and it has a 4x4 stance
>>20386787well it does have 1000hp
Apart from the rims it really doesn’t look THAT bad. I’m not a big mopar person but it’s not offensive to the eyes
>>20387012Everything they added/took away made it look worse.
Remove the hood scoop, the wheel arches, and place in narrower tires and this concept is niceeeee.
>>20385308my hard melted when I saw itthen my ears heard that 1000hp 7L V8 with a 3L supercharger and I basically camethe sound of a low reving big displaced V8 is magical. The looks are incredible for me as a muscle car lover pic related is the dream(despite the fact that I would have preferred de '69 tail lights instead of what they did but anyway)Fact is that if Dodge is able to pass pedestrian safety with this squared shape the vintage looking charger is going to sell like crazy
>>20387114the namefag is right on this one
>>20387114It has 1,000 hp it needs wide ass fuck tires and I'm damn sure that scoop is functional
What car is the ideal for someone who is looking for something that is very small, that is eco friendly and does not contaminate, that has a friendly appearance and Nothing Rude and that very easy to drive.
>>20386787Agreed. Muscle should have sidewalls.
>>20389305>it has to look retarded for the retarded amount of powerk
>>20389600It's more>it has to look retarded so we have excuses why it won't preform like we say it does and gets beaten by a luxury sedan.
>>20389336Well that car is pretty far from a "muscle car". When you have 16'' brake rotors you can't really run 14'' rims like muscle cars of the past. The rear brake rotors would be alot smaller so you could still fit some WELDS and some thick drag radials.
>>20389620american muscle cars always performed like shit around any track, who the fuck cares. they're supposed to be cheap, cool looking and have a v8, that's all they have to do.
>>20386787My only beef about the wheel size is that now there's a bunch of space between the rotor and the rim.I believe that tires should fill the arches, and that brakes should fill the rim. About a 1" gap looks good to me. YMMV.
>>20389620I guess we're not supposed to have cars that are just different and fun to drive unless HURR DUURR 'RING TIMES.
>>20385308Sorry, now bring back the Turbo Mopars of the 80's you little shits.
>>20389659>wanting completely worthless piles of garbageOh wow.
>>20389659t. Someone who's never launched a GLH/S. In their day, they were hugely underrated. Fun at the strip, really fun for cone-fagging.
>>20389663>completely worthlessThe Turbo Mopars, especially with the 2.2 litre intercooled Turbo II mated to the getrag 5 speed, were most excellent hoon and drag machines for tight budgets without sacrificing reliability and daily drivability. They weren't great like a 7 series BMW or a cadillac, but they weren't accord or corolla tier boring shitheaps.>>20389673t. Someone who has owned a couple of Turbo II LeBarons and a Daytona in the EU. We never got the Omni here, instead we got the Talbot Horizon the Omni was based on and the Lotus Sunbeam which was an RWD rally monster.
>>20389679>Cope harder.What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Is that just something people throw up because they don't have any kind of actual argument?
>>20389682Still slow as fuck and were complete disposable trash. Rather have an Accord or Corolla over them.
>>20389682>Lotus Sunbeam which was an RWD rally monster. *Goes to wiki to look up Lotus Sunbeam*
>>20389691And the accord and corolla weren't slow as shit and complete disposable trash? Seethe more
>>20389305I'm sure that the engineers at FCA can find a way to have wide tires that are flush and don't need ugly fenders
>>20389700Meh, good job displaying your ignorance. Even the base models are more desirable than K-Car garbage.
>>20389689It means you will grasp at straws as to why the car is good when it is inferior to heaps. You will claim it is good at something until it is proven bad then backpedalling to hurr its fun. That is cope and you have it bad.
>>20389709>no turbo>no power>no torksYeah you can keep your slow shitbox
>>20389705>those tiresCHONKY BOIS
>>20389724Meh, not complete garbage like a K-Car, how embarrassing. Enjoy your worthless throwaway shitboxes. Nothing more pathetic than Chrysler.
>>20389749>11 seconds to 60Is that the NA model as I know that the Turbo II does 0-60 in 7 seconds.
>>20389754Nope, that's a turbo model, and real world test and not random stats from a site.
>>20389757Again, is it a Turbo I, II or III?The Turbo I had like 150hp at best, the Turbo II had around 174 or so and the Turbo III had a Lotus 16 valve DOHC head and 224hp.
>>20389767What does it matter? It's slower than a 110 hp Corolla hatchback.
>>20389770I'm plenty sure the Turbo III for example won't be slower than some corolla or any factory road going corolla of the time period for that matter.You seem quite mad that not everyone hates cheap and reliable power and praise some jap shitbox that barely moves.
>>20389779Meh, Turbo III cars were slower than Mustangs and Camaro V8s despite costing more. Those were garbage. All K-cars are garbage.
>>20385929theyre actually what was considered midsized
>>20389689That namefag is literally retarded. Don’t even bother responding to “him”
>>20391520What would you consider a fast time for a 69 camaro with the aerodynamics of a brick shed? >faster than the mid night chumps in a straight line>probably faster up pikes, tooamerica wins again faggot
>>20391580street racing is for niggers though
>>20385308This thing looks it came out of one of The Crew games.
>>20385308Would smash... errr I mean drive.
>>20385308It's too late.
>>20389717And you will just shit post for?(You's)?Lack of an actual life?Dissatisfaction with your shitty pathetic life?All of the above?
>>20389754That's the Shelby turbo z that does 7seconds not the Lebaron. Different tune and weight. Also this >>20389783Fucking turbo 3 cost as much as a 5.0 without the speed. At least a prelude could still out turn a lot of similarly priced cars at the time.
No cause it's fucking cool
>>20386787>>20386994Those are the hellcat widebody rims. It only makes sense to throw that on a charger with widebody fender flares
>>20395912A whole lot of projection up in here.
>>20386808Boomers love chip foose, even boomers in new zealand
>>20397412The wheels are a lesser problem the rest of the ugly is hard to change.