72 Satellite
Well-Known Member
Absolutely Stunning love that color combo!
Time for a show lets see the 71-74's
- Thread starter 63RedFury
- Start date
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
Looks more like a C3 Corvette concept.
If you inflate it up to passenger car proportions, looks like a slightly evolved 3rd gen.
BloodyKnuckles
New Member
Here's mine, need a hood if anyone has one close to central Texas... and affordable, gonna cut a big hole in it... lol
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
TJ74
Well-Known Member
Tomcat
Well-Known Member
Been a long time since I saw side pipes on anything other than a jeep or a vetted! Very cool!
Tomcat
Well-Known Member
One of my high school buds back in the early 80s had a twin to yours!! Flashback!!
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
I'm trying to figure out how Dodge made the 3rd gen Charger look so different, so I put together the best side view images I could find. These aren't ideal for purpose, so if anyone has proper engineering drawings from Chrysler, let me know.
I threw in a modern Charger for fun
These comparisons are made assuming the wheel bases are the same, which they aren't. I'm assuming the 2nd and 3rd gens are within a couple inches of each other, and I can't be that accurate with these little images.
It's surprising just how close the 3rd gen is to the 2nd gen. Although they look totally different, they're almost identical. Comparing a good picture of the 2nd gen to my 3rd gen in real life, I think the front bumper of the 3rd gen is a couple inches further forward, the trunk may be a couple inches shorter (doesn't appear that way here) and the biggest difference is that the roof appears to have been shifted back a few inches. Part of that is due to the windshield being laid back at a steeper angle, although here it appears as if the whole windshield was moved back a few inches. I don't think it is, but I believe the back edge of the roof is further back. The 3rd gen roof slants down towards the rear of the car. That didn't do anything for rear head room so I'm guessing it is to ease the airflow transition to the rear deck. In these side view pics, it doesn't appear as if the rear deck and rear fender peak are higher than on the 2nd gen. I thought that they were, but maybe not?
I threw in a modern Charger for fun
These comparisons are made assuming the wheel bases are the same, which they aren't. I'm assuming the 2nd and 3rd gens are within a couple inches of each other, and I can't be that accurate with these little images.
It's surprising just how close the 3rd gen is to the 2nd gen. Although they look totally different, they're almost identical. Comparing a good picture of the 2nd gen to my 3rd gen in real life, I think the front bumper of the 3rd gen is a couple inches further forward, the trunk may be a couple inches shorter (doesn't appear that way here) and the biggest difference is that the roof appears to have been shifted back a few inches. Part of that is due to the windshield being laid back at a steeper angle, although here it appears as if the whole windshield was moved back a few inches. I don't think it is, but I believe the back edge of the roof is further back. The 3rd gen roof slants down towards the rear of the car. That didn't do anything for rear head room so I'm guessing it is to ease the airflow transition to the rear deck. In these side view pics, it doesn't appear as if the rear deck and rear fender peak are higher than on the 2nd gen. I thought that they were, but maybe not?
joe m
Well-Known Member
My driver 73 ssp with 408 strokes
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
Are the intakes closed off?
joe m
Well-Known Member
Yes just put that hood on
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
Hmm . . . I like the design of the hood, I'm surprised to learn it isn't functional. Looks like the intakes would feed into one of these -
YY1
Well-Known Member
...and there's really no easy way to make it functional.
The simulated opening is WAY too small to just cut it out.
...and there's bracing behind it.
If you remove the castings, it looks VERY unfinished.
A FBBO member did make one functional a few years ago, but it was a lot of work.
They are super cool looking, though.
Almost as mean and nasty looking as a 69 Super Bee N96.
The simulated opening is WAY too small to just cut it out.
...and there's bracing behind it.
If you remove the castings, it looks VERY unfinished.
A FBBO member did make one functional a few years ago, but it was a lot of work.
They are super cool looking, though.
Almost as mean and nasty looking as a 69 Super Bee N96.
Last edited:
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
If I could make a suggestion then, paint the intake portion matte black instead of purple. Just the "wall" at the end of the tunnel.
Shame Chrysler didn't make the hood scoops functional. It's not as hard as making fake door vents functional. That would be nice too, of course!
Shame Chrysler didn't make the hood scoops functional. It's not as hard as making fake door vents functional. That would be nice too, of course!
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
Speaking of hood scoops, I've been considering putting a hood scoop on my 72 Charger's flat hood as a temporary measure, since I figure it will cost around $3000 to put a Ramcharger hood on. Here are some I've found around the internet -
440 6 Pack Hood -
E-Body Hood Scoop -
69 Super Bee -
Duster -
I'm not sure if this one is another 440 6-Pack scoop or a Mustang scoop -
It looks like it slants down more in the back than the 6 pack scoop, but that could be the angle/lighting/low quality photo.
Some say the 440 6 Pack scoop is too clunky to match the Charger's curvy styling. It's so tall, it might be difficult to autocross with. It's the most correct of the bunch, although my car isn't a 440 and i don't intend for it to be.
The 69 Super Bee scoops are interesting, but the underhood plumbing would be difficult.
If the B-body is a "big E-body," than the E-body scoop is incorrect but a little correct. It fits the Charger's lines better than the 440 6-pack scoop.
My personal favorite is the Duster scoop. It's not "correct" but it's still a MOPAR scoop, and I've always liked the twin snorkel look. It's cleaner than the E-body scoop and 440 6 pack scoop, since it doesn't have the external mounting flange.
I don't have any idea what the issues are with hood scoop installation. Cutting out the center crease must weaken the hood, but clearly people do it.
I also wonder about driving a scoop in the rain. The factory made these things though so I guess water ingestion isn't a problem.
440 6 Pack Hood -
E-Body Hood Scoop -
69 Super Bee -
Duster -
I'm not sure if this one is another 440 6-Pack scoop or a Mustang scoop -
It looks like it slants down more in the back than the 6 pack scoop, but that could be the angle/lighting/low quality photo.
Some say the 440 6 Pack scoop is too clunky to match the Charger's curvy styling. It's so tall, it might be difficult to autocross with. It's the most correct of the bunch, although my car isn't a 440 and i don't intend for it to be.
The 69 Super Bee scoops are interesting, but the underhood plumbing would be difficult.
If the B-body is a "big E-body," than the E-body scoop is incorrect but a little correct. It fits the Charger's lines better than the 440 6-pack scoop.
My personal favorite is the Duster scoop. It's not "correct" but it's still a MOPAR scoop, and I've always liked the twin snorkel look. It's cleaner than the E-body scoop and 440 6 pack scoop, since it doesn't have the external mounting flange.
I don't have any idea what the issues are with hood scoop installation. Cutting out the center crease must weaken the hood, but clearly people do it.
I also wonder about driving a scoop in the rain. The factory made these things though so I guess water ingestion isn't a problem.
ratpoison2
Member
JR_Charger
Well-Known Member
ratpoison2
Member
Yes!Are you sure you're getting enough air through those scoops?
YY1
Well-Known Member
That "A body scoop" is just a really well designed and nice looking scoop.
Similar in function and appearance to a generic "snorkel", but much better looking IMO and all Moapr.
I've seen them look good on everything from a Cordoba, to a 66/67 Charger/Coronet, to a 72-80 truck.
Similar in function and appearance to a generic "snorkel", but much better looking IMO and all Moapr.
I've seen them look good on everything from a Cordoba, to a 66/67 Charger/Coronet, to a 72-80 truck.
Similar threads
