Charger Vs Challenger

[JMF]

Thinking of selling one of my Challengers to make way for a 68-70 Charger, just wondering on what people's opinions are on the overall difference in how both cars drive ? I know a lot of things can affect different cars in how they drive but just for this discussion say they both have the same setup, or are both stock etc, i'm talking big blocks too, I believe Challengers are heavier than Chargers also ?

I personally like how my Challengers drive, they drive just as nice as any Mustang i've owned and don't feel much heavier

I had a 68 Charger a few years back but it spent more time being repaired than driven so never really got to drive it much before I decided to part exchange it for something else

[moparchris]

Everything being equal I feel the Chargers are better road cars to drive.  This is just my two cents and everyone is going to look at this differently.  I've always felt like the Challengers put the steering wheel into my chest in an uncomfortable position.
I drove my 69 Hemi Charger on a road trip last summer.  Covered 1800 miles and I felt like a million bucks at the end of each day.

[Hard Charger]

my 68 Charger drives better than my 72 challenger, The charger is heavier and has a longer wheel base.

[Mike DC]

   
Yeah, the Charger is heavier and the wheelbase is longer.  The longer wheelbase makes it ride better but also definitely makes it feel like a longer & less "toss-able" car.


The Charger might give the impression of a lighter car because of the size/weight ratio.  The Charger feels a whole step bigger but it's only half a step heavier. 

Think of it this way:  An old Mopar's rear bench seat (both top and bottom together) weighs a total of about 50 lbs.  The cast-iron power steering gearbox only weighs about 38 lbs.  But the backseat sure does not seem heavier, does it?  The seat is so much bigger than the PS box that it gives the impression of being much lighter when the weights are similar.   




IMHO the E-bodies feel more directly related to the 3rd-gen Chargers than the 2nd-gens.   The 2nd-gens might interchange more pieces on the undercarriage (especially compared to 1973-up Charger) but the body & interior design of the E-bodies was clearly a 1970s car whereas the 2nd-gen Chargers were a 1960s car.   

[Ghoste]

I have a buddy that I often tease about his 71 Charger just being a big fat ponycar.

[1974dodgecharger]

I have a buddy that I often tease about his 71 Charger just being a big fat ponycar.

LMAO yeah I never thought of that way, but thats true 

[Mopar Nut]

What year of Challengers do you have? 1970, 1971 keep them, anything else sell them.

[archie360]

Fat ponycar or maybe a clydesdale.  I have no experience with 68-70 chargers but I had a '70 Barracuda and plenty of 3rd gen chargers.  If I remember correctly the ride is pretty simular.  I prefer the interiors of the b-bodies, they just seem more comfortable and put together better.  Another plus for b bodies is plenty of room to take family & friends to car shows along with coolers, chairs, canopy etc.  It's really hard to beat a cuda or challenger for eye candy though!

[Kern Dog]

The seating position and rear visibility suck on the Challengers. I had a 73 Challenger and even though I am of regular size, it just wasn't as easy to drive as the Charger.

[Fred]

The seating position and rear visibility suck on the Challengers. I had a 73 Challenger and even though I am of regular size, it just wasn't as easy to drive as the Charger.

So true.
My1970 Cuda was exactly the same. Hopeless. Couldn't see a thing, especially sitting on the wrong side of the road for the LHD. The Charger on the other hand is great even as a LHD (over here). Easy to drive and great visibility all round.  

[Troy]

I have/had a bunch of both. My 68 Charger R/T was nicest to drive on the highway or for any length of time. If my dad was riding with me he'd always suggest taking the Charger. It is longer and feels more balanced - especially with a big block! The Challenger has slightly better seats but the driving position isn't as comfortable. If you have one without A/C, there is literally almost no air movement in a Challenger. There's plenty in a Charger if you've got all the windows down. I learned this the hard way on the 9 hour drive to Carlisle in 96 degree heat!

Troy

[duanesterrr]

Interesting thread.  I have been thinking of switching my search from a 68 Charger to a 70 Challenger due to how much easier it is to find one with a 4 speed in my price range. 

[bull]

The seating position and rear visibility suck on the Challengers. I had a 73 Challenger and even though I am of regular size, it just wasn't as easy to drive as the Charger.

So true.
My1970 Cuda was exactly the same. Hopeless. Couldn't see a thing, especially sitting on the wrong side of the road for the LHD. The Charger on the other hand is great even as a LHD (over here). Easy to drive and great visibility all round.  

I agree. I've never driven an e-body but I've ridden in a few and they are a lot like sitting in a cardboard box with an 8"x12" hole cut out for the windshield. A rolling blind spot.

[Sendero]

I drove and sat in the back seat of a 70 Charger from San Diego to Philadelphia. Did the same trip the following year in a 70 Challenger. The Charger was a better ride on the highway for the drivers and the occupants ( often sleeping in the back seat). BTW, I am almost 6'2" . Was the Challenger a far worse ride ? Nope.  In the Challenger, you did not have to reach as far to shake the nodding-off driver  . I do recall not seeing the edges of the Chally front end as well in the drivers seat as I did in the Charger so my gut feel is that I was sitting lower in the Chally. In San Diego, I like the Challenger as a city driver because of the steering wheel position close to me....but the RT/SE rear window was a pain to parallel park with!

[Fred]

The seating position and rear visibility suck on the Challengers. I had a 73 Challenger and even though I am of regular size, it just wasn't as easy to drive as the Charger.

So true.
My1970 Cuda was exactly the same. Hopeless. Couldn't see a thing, especially sitting on the wrong side of the road for the LHD. The Charger on the other hand is great even as a LHD (over here). Easy to drive and great visibility all round.  

I agree. I've never driven an e-body but I've ridden in a few and they are a lot like sitting in a cardboard box with an 8"x12" hole cut out for the windshield. A rolling blind spot.

Don't get me wrong, my Cuda was heaps of fun to drive and being lime light it drew a lot of attention but it sure helped having the Mrs. along on each ride.......she was my eyes........she was seeing everything I couldn't see.

[Scaregrabber]

I've had a bunch of each and the best driving of them all is a 71-72 Charger by far. The 68-70 Chargers are fairly nice to drive but are noisier and not as tight as a 71-72, the Challengers are short and low and the most fun to put through the corners especially when equipped with a rear bar. 71-72 is what you want if you plan to put 800 miles on in a day.

Sheldon

[69charger2002]

Looks may be a factor...
I have had a couple E bodies. To me they feel more like a modern car size wise. They do have a long hood, but even my wife is more comfortable driving them. But the quality control seems worse than a solid 68-70 charger. The 68-70 charger, and any 68-70 b body for that matter, is a deceptively big car. Staring at the lines on the outside make you almost forget that it's over 17' long. They do float along the road much better, and the dash layout is much preferred to me on the charger, and driving position too.
Trav

[Ghoste]

I prefer the Charger dash as well but the Rallye gauges in the E-bodies weren't horrible either.  A good second place.

[greymag]

Chargers have better seats. I had a 73 rally Challenger & it road like a truck, the seats have lower tracks so you sit closer to the floor

[Ghoste]

Could that be partly a function of the shorter wheelbase too?

[bull]

The guys on the E-body site may have a different opinion on this.

[challenger70]

Get both!