What if...

I like it…except for the “twice pipes”…

Posted by: @terryslekar

I like it…except for the “twice pipes”…

I agree Terry.  The rear quarter "scoop" looks derived from the '69 Mustang CJ.

Umm, no from me. As a 2-seater the proportions, to my eyes, are off.

The concept styling appears way too large. 

Steve 

Maybe it IS too big for a 2-seater. But back then big was good,and bigger was better, no?

A faint suggestion of a Daytona/Superbird front end and Charger back end, nicely combined and balanced to my eyes. Very attractive nose.

Apologies for my minimalist photo editing skills, but I just had to try it without the side exhausts

and wondered how it would look without the "Mustang" scoops, just Challenger-style "hips"

I never cared for the nose on either the Super Bird or the Daytona.

Ah well, so you won't like this either! But it is less extreme than those and I think it's quite attractive.

Both of MOPAR's wing cars were hard for dealers to move off their lots. 

At first glance, they kind of resemble the early '60s Ford Mustang Concept, which I prefer to these Mopar creations.

I like the Mustang Concept, but I will pass on the Mopars..

It looks very interesting and would a pretty cool car. A tweak here or there might improve it even more.

Posted by: @jkuvakas

Both of MOPAR's wing cars were hard for dealers to move off their lots. 

Can't say I'm surprised.

Something looks off with this car; maybe it's a bit too wide and/or maybe the wheels are too small.  The nose has much better definition than the Daytona/Superbird.

@sizedoesmatter, by late '71, some dealers were swapping front clips for standard issue Road Runner or R/T front ends to move the cars. Ironically, the Hemi-equipped cars were the hardest to sell. They were exceptionally thirsty and were not well suited for running on the streets.

The point about the Daytona/Superbird, of course, was not that Chrysler Corp simply got a silly notion to sell a wild-looking and fairly impractical car to the public. On the NASCAR circuit their stock car racers were losing out to Ford and Chevy because the basic Dodge Charger (much as we love its looks) was aerodynamically poor. The nose was blunt and created a lot of drag at speed, and the "tunneled" rear window created a low-pressure area which was trying to suck the car backwards, causing even more drag. So they came up with the new aerodynamic nose job and big rear spoiler and made the rear window flush. If I remember rightly, these tweaks added about 6 mph to the top speed - and they started winning big time. Unfortunately, in order for the cars to qualify as "stock", Chrysler had to offer at least 1000 cars in that body configuration to the public. So they came up with the Daytona and, realising right from the start that shifting them would be difficult, they tried to broaden the sales appeal by also offering the Plymouth Superbird sister car, even though Plymouth didn't actually have a "stock" equivalent to the street Charger.

@graeme-ogg Quite right Graeme and of course by creating the 1000 or so Daytonas and even the Superbird, Chryco sold countless regular Chargers and their other assorted muscle cars just by name association.  Every car person loves a winner.  As teenagers at the time we used to laugh at them on the street simply because they looked ridiculous for civilian use; especially that massive wing.  We used to joke about the effect of it locking in the tail end of the car at city speeds. But of course being young we had no awareness of the "racing success equals sales" marketing concept.  To be honest I still think they look a bit silly on our roads but of course appreciate them very much for the automotive history they made.  I also recall disliking the Daytona so much back in the day because of the fact that I absolutely loved that era Charger styling (especially the '68) and I thought the Daytona was an insult to it's looks.