Motor Trend‘s road test of the 1970 Dodge Challenger was largely laudatory, noting that “Dodge has had a few years to observe what’s been going on in the pony car field and has incorporated many of the good features of the breed” (1969, p. 40). In contrast, Car and Driver offered a harsh critique that went a ways toward anticipating why the Challenger would end up not selling very well.
Whereas Motor Trend saw the Challenger’s late entrance into the pony car field as an advantage, Car and Driver’s (1969) unbylined article pointed to the downside: “Sometimes when you leap late you find that by the time you hit your target everybody else has gone somewhere else. This is painfully close to being the case with the Challenger/Barracuda because it is a half-faced replica of the Camaro/Firebird which GM is planning to completely revamp in just a few months.”
Car and Driver went on to describe the Challenger as a “handsome car but it also has a massive feeling which is totally unwelcome in a sporty car — a massive feeling which results from a full five inches more width than a Mustang and a need to sign up with Weight Watchers. The Hemi-powered test car weighed 3890 pounds and if any normally equipped V-8 Challenger with a full tank of gas weighs less than 3550 pounds we would be surprised” (1969, p. 40).
Not very roomy, mediocre handling and poor braking
Despite the extra poundage, Car and Driver did not find that the Challenger was notably roomier than other pony cars — particularly in the back seat. That was apparently intentional. A Dodge product planner was quoted as saying, “In other sporty cars the rear seat is worthless about 95% of the time. That area in the Challenger is worthless only about 75% of the time” (1969, p. 40).
Motor Trend acknowledged the Challenger’s tight back seat but lauded the trunk space for “being unusually good for a pony car” (1969, p. 40). I’m curious as to how they came to that conclusion given that the Challenger reportedly had eight cubic feet of trunk capacity — less than the Ford Mustang notchback (9.8), the AMC Javelin (10.2) and the Chevrolet Camaro (8.5).
The Challenger’s weight “was simply too heavy, Car and Driver argued. The idea of a ‘sporty’ car weighing within 100 pounds of a comparably equipped Road Runner or Super Bee is ridiculous” (1969, p. 40). The magazine didn’t point out why that was the case — instead of basing the Challenger on a compact platform, Chrysler put it on a shortened version of Chrysler’s next-generation, mid-sized platform.
One result was a more lopsided weight distribution. Car and Driver’s Hemi test car had 58.9 percent of its weight on the front wheels. This did not help the car’s mediocre handling and and downright poor braking.
Magazines offer different takes on SE package
Car and Driver saved its biggest criticisms for the top-of-line SE package, with a “next to useless” overhead console and a vinyl roofline with a much smaller rear window that turned the Challenger into a “park-by-ear” car.
Motor Trend stated that the “small back window seemed strange at first, sort of a hark back to the ’20s and ’30s, but we soon got used to it and dig the feeling of privacy.” And the magazine was jazzed by the Challenger’s FM radio, which “has one of the most perfect stereo tonal effects of any car we’ve been in.” Writer Bill Sanders concluded, “If you dig stereo, the car would be worth it on that point alone” (1969; p. 41).
Car and Driver concluded that “the SE package serves to exemplify the entire Challenger approach — lavish execution with no thought to practical application” (1969, p. 113).
Dodge product planners should ‘fall on their swords’
Perhaps to soften its criticism, Car and Driver acknowledged that pony cars sold primarily on styling and the Challenger did well in that department.
“Still, we are disappointed that looks are awarded such a high priority over function and we think Dodge has had enough time to build a more purposeful car. It’s our humble suggestion that, to avoid similar ineptitude in the future, all of the Challenger product planners fall on their swords immediately” (1969, p. 113).
Also see ‘1970 Plymouth Barracuda should have been like an Australian Valiant Charger’
That zinger must have hurt, particularly given that the Challenger ended up selling so poorly — under 190,000 units over a five-year production run.
Even Motor Trend ended on a sour note, pointing to quality-control glitches, such as “numerous rattles in the body” and power windows that stopped working. “Many of these defects can probably be remedied without difficulty. We hope so” (Sanders, 1969; p. 41).
NOTES:
Specifications are from Automobile Catalog (2024) and production figures from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006) and Gunnell (2002).
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Automobile Catalog; 2020. “Search automobile-catalog.” Accessed March 20.
- Car and Driver; 1969. “Dodge Challenger R/T Hemi.” November issue: pp. 39-44, 113.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Sanders, Bill; 1969. “Challenger.” Motor Trend. November issue: pp. 40-42.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- oldcarbrochures.org: Dodge Challenger (1970)
First, Motor Trend of that time was the whore of the car magazine world. At least one editor was fired over offending a manufacturer. MoTrend was about wrapping some editorial content around as much advertising as they could possibly book. Their ethics, or lack thereof, started at their ownership.
C/D claimed irreverence but one does suspect that there was a business reality that did intrude somewhere.
As for the cars being tested. The C/D car was the worst combination possible for handling and braking. A massive lump of a Hemi out front with drum brakes. Why anyone at ChryCo thought that was a good spec to hand anyone but Hot Rod magazine is beyond me.
At least the MoTrend car had disc brakes. Notice they also did some testing with the 340 in addition to the full test with the 383. According to the article this 383 car was 300 lbs lighter than the C/D Hemi.
For 1970/71 all the pony cars grew. The 2nd generation Camaro & Firebird, the 71 Mustang, and event the 71 Javelin all added size. ChryCo may have been the worst by using the intermediate platform but it may have made sense since it made it share a high production car that could accommodate all the available engines.
Back seat and trunk – none of the pony cars were being sold with either of these as high priority attributes.
As for ChryCo quality, as one of the corporate people told me ChryCo’s well built cars were as good as GM or Ford but the problem was that their production line quality varied to a low far worse than the competition.
It shouldbpointed out that as all the pony cars grew, there was a lot of activity developing in the Super Coupes with the Capri, Opel Rallye, Celica. Smaller than the original Mustang but selling style and sportiness on a smaller scale.
I would imagine that whomever at Chrysler decided to give Car and Driver a Hemi with the SE package and drum brakes took some heat. And rightfully so. That said, it strikes me as telling that as late as 1970 Chrysler wasn’t making disc brakes standard on Hemis given the premium price they charged.
The Challenger wasn’t just on the heavy side with the Hemi — even with a six it topped 3,000 pounds. That was 460 pounds more than a 1967 Mustang (although the upsized 1971 model was only 130 pounds lighter and the second-generation Firebird almost 100 pounds heavier). As we discuss further here, all the upsizing didn’t help sales, particularly compared to subcompact sporty coupes such as the Capri and compacts such as the Duster.
I see the Super Coupes (Capri, Celica, etc.) as really a different market, at least in 1970/71.
In some defense of Chrysler’s product planning for the Challenger and Barracuda at the time that these were being conceived (1965-1967) it wouldmake sense that they needed a platform that could readily accompdate thebig block engines. Dodge and Plymouth had a lot of their image built around their big block performance cars. Although the Dart did have a big block offering for a while it was an off the production line installation to make it fit; a drag race model.
Ford certainly made a lot of market presence with their 390 and 428 engined Mustangs and Cougars. It is quite reasonable to assume that ChryCo took notice of this. Chevrolet was less wedded to the big block with the Camaro but Pontiac’s 326/400 engine was the same size as their 426/455 which made the engine compartment accomodate all big blocks.
Should and even could ChryCo have made the smaller compact platform compatible with their big blocks to maintain the smaller pony car? Was that even a possibility in the product planning cycle of platforms? An interesting what if. IF it could have happened I do believe that the Cuda/Challenger design could have translated down to the smaller platform easily enough; possible exception of the windshield angle.
I do agree that there is no way that any of the performance package Cuda/Challengers (possibly any iteration with any V8) should not of included front disc brakes as standard equipment. Maybe drum brakes were better for the drag racers.
I suspect that if I were in the same circumstances then (job, family size) as I am now, I would have convinced my wife to go for the sensible Duster but with a sporty package for me to make it fun for Dad, so a Demon/Duster 340 would have been far more likely to appear in my driveway than a 426 Challenger R/T like the one in ‘Vanishing Point’ (That’s on my perennial Top 10 films list along with ‘2 Lane Blacktop’ and ‘Grand Prix’. Steve a road/car movies discussion would be a good topic?) so the Demon/Duster 340 would have been just about right for us. The 1st oil embargo was a mere 2 years away, so the extra mpg of a 340 in a light body would have definitely helped.
I’m kinda sorry I never got to drive either of these cars back when they were on the used lots with the figures that waved in the wind and not the collectibles they are now. The opportunity to see what was worn, how they drove and enjoy a little used car hooning wasn’t taken. But the Dart already had a rep for being mostly made well and reliable, so that would have sold the deal for me after a test drive for rattles.
I checked the shipping weights of fully-equipped Chrysler RB-series big blocks from RB-383s to 413s to 426s and 440s. They weigh between 650 to almost 700-pounds ! So a 383 in a Challenger or a Baccaruda would not have registered much less on an overall scale even is one of those carried a 440-Six-Pack ! Since the ChryCo pony cars did not use the A-body platform but utilized the 1971 B-body platform that allowed for more “tuck-under”, i.e. “fuselage” bodies that were going to be the new feature of the intermediate Plymouths and Dodges, no wonder the pony cars used the bigger car platform. I still would have taken a 340-Baccaruda in 1970 !