[Bret L]

In what is really not all that bad an article, but one that is
frustrating for what is not asked or shown, Mr. Dorgay discusses
McIntosh's manufacuring and engineering and their reissue of a set of
MC75 power amps and a C22 preamp in strictly limited numbers.

Well, one subject of discussion was the new Dodge Challenger, which
greatly resembles the ones made in 1970-1974. I think it's interesting
to look at these cars and the decisions their manufacturer made, which
may give us insight into how manufacturers of other lines of products
think.

The new Challenger is, as a car on its own terms, not all that bad.
There are worse cars out there and it isn't insanely overpriced like
the Ford GT. Still, there are several things that from the standpoint
of anyone interested in classic cars of the period would find less
than desireable about it as a replacement for an original car.

No panel interchanges with the original. It is significantly longer
and taller, in essence a stylized oversize scale model of the
original. While that makes it a little more comfortable, no one who
wants a car like this really cares that much. There is no reason that
they couldn't have kept the door skins, all the glass, the hood and
trunk lids and probably the rear panels from the original car,
strategically braced. Even the roof skins could have been kept. The
door latches and inner skins would have to have been changed, along
with the front and rear structure, but they could have kept
essentially the old bumper cosmetics

It handles, stops and behaves better than the original, without
question. The stopping is because of modern brakes and an original car
can be brought up to equal, or even better, standards with a brake
retrofit. This is proven by many Pro Mod/Pro Touring Challengers out
there, many of which have Brembo or Wilwood components and upgraded
rotors. A few even have full ABS, although that's become less popular
in recent years. The cornering is better than the original, and
without major structural mods that's one area the old one can't match.

But who buys these things, road racers and wannabe road racers, or
drag racers and stoplight squirrels? We don't really have to ask. For
anything over the mildest bracket racing, the original car's live rear
axle is way better. No independent rear is as good as a solid rear
end, when you are responsible for maintaining it. CV joints and half
shafts die on the dragstrip. The buyer would have been happier with a
solid axle-in fact, the preference by anyone who knows would be a 9"
Ford rear end like all four NASCAR brands run.

The bigger and more pressing was why reissue the Challenger at all,
when the charger was by far the more desireable car, except for drag
racing? It's better looking and more comfortable. The ostensible
reason was that they'd already named the four door "Charger", but
that's semantics. They could have called the retro car the Charger
something-or-other and everyone would have been happier.

[vinyl anachronist]

On Aug 4, 11:05�pm, Bret L wrote:
�In what is really not all that bad an article, but one that is
frustrating for what is not asked or shown, Mr. Dorgay discusses
McIntosh's manufacuring and engineering and their reissue of a set of
MC75 power amps and a C22 preamp in strictly limited numbers.

�Well, one subject of discussion was the new Dodge Challenger, which
greatly resembles the ones made in 1970-1974. I think it's interesting
to look at these cars and the decisions their manufacturer made, which
may give us insight into how �manufacturers of other lines of products
think.

�The new Challenger is, as a car on its own terms, not all that bad.
There are worse cars out there and it isn't insanely overpriced like
the Ford GT. Still, there are several things that from the standpoint
of anyone interested in classic cars of the period would find less
than desireable about it as a replacement for an original car.

�No panel interchanges with the original. It is significantly longer
and taller, in essence a stylized oversize scale model of the
original. While that makes it a little more comfortable, no one who
wants a car like this really cares that much. There is no reason that
they couldn't have kept the door skins, all the glass, the hood and
trunk lids and probably the rear panels from the original car,
strategically braced. Even the roof skins could have been kept. The
door latches and inner skins would have to have been changed, along
with the front and rear structure, but they could have kept
essentially the old bumper cosmetics

�It handles, stops and behaves better than the original, without
question. The stopping is because of modern brakes and an original car
can be brought up to equal, or even better, standards with a brake
retrofit. This is proven by many Pro Mod/Pro Touring Challengers out
there, many of which have Brembo or Wilwood components and upgraded
rotors. A few even have full ABS, although that's become less popular
in recent years. �The cornering is better than the original, and
without major structural mods that's one area the old one can't match.

�But who buys these things, road racers and wannabe road racers, or
drag racers and stoplight squirrels? We don't really have to ask. For
anything over the mildest bracket racing, the original car's live rear
axle is way better. No independent rear is as good as a solid rear
end, when you are responsible for maintaining it. CV joints and half
shafts die on the dragstrip. The buyer would have been happier with a
solid axle-in fact, the preference by anyone who knows would be a 9"
Ford rear end like all four NASCAR brands run.

�The bigger and more pressing was why reissue the Challenger at all,
when the charger was by far the more desireable car, except for drag
racing? It's better looking and more comfortable. The ostensible
reason was that they'd already named the four door "Charger", but
that's semantics. They could have called the retro car the Charger
something-or-other and everyone would have been happier.

Let's see...you mentioned that you were frustrated by the article,
then you spent the rest of your long-winded post talking about the
Challenger. Yet another pointless troll, in other words.

But thanks for reading. You're driving our Google numbers way up with
your obsession.

[Bret L]

On Aug 5, 10:59*am, vinyl anachronist
wrote:
On Aug 4, 11:05 pm, Bret L wrote:



In what is really not all that bad an article, but one that is
frustrating for what is not asked or shown, Mr. Dorgay discusses
McIntosh's manufacuring and engineering and their reissue of a set of
MC75 power amps and a C22 preamp in strictly limited numbers.

Well, one subject of discussion was the new Dodge Challenger, which
greatly resembles the ones made in 1970-1974. I think it's interesting
to look at these cars and the decisions their manufacturer made, which
may give us insight into how manufacturers of other lines of products
think.

The new Challenger is, as a car on its own terms, not all that bad.
There are worse cars out there and it isn't insanely overpriced like
the Ford GT. Still, there are several things that from the standpoint
of anyone interested in classic cars of the period would find less
than desireable about it as a replacement for an original car.

No panel interchanges with the original. It is significantly longer
and taller, in essence a stylized oversize scale model of the
original. While that makes it a little more comfortable, no one who
wants a car like this really cares that much. There is no reason that
they couldn't have kept the door skins, all the glass, the hood and
trunk lids and probably the rear panels from the original car,
strategically braced. Even the roof skins could have been kept. The
door latches and inner skins would have to have been changed, along
with the front and rear structure, but they could have kept
essentially the old bumper cosmetics

It handles, stops and behaves better than the original, without
question. The stopping is because of modern brakes and an original car
can be brought up to equal, or even better, standards with a brake
retrofit. This is proven by many Pro Mod/Pro Touring Challengers out
there, many of which have Brembo or Wilwood components and upgraded
rotors. A few even have full ABS, although that's become less popular
in recent years. The cornering is better than the original, and
without major structural mods that's one area the old one can't match.

But who buys these things, road racers and wannabe road racers, or
drag racers and stoplight squirrels? We don't really have to ask. For
anything over the mildest bracket racing, the original car's live rear
axle is way better. No independent rear is as good as a solid rear
end, when you are responsible for maintaining it. CV joints and half
shafts die on the dragstrip. The buyer would have been happier with a
solid axle-in fact, the preference by anyone who knows would be a 9"
Ford rear end like all four NASCAR brands run.

The bigger and more pressing was why reissue the Challenger at all,
when the charger was by far the more desireable car, except for drag
racing? It's better looking and more comfortable. The ostensible
reason was that they'd already named the four door "Charger", but
that's semantics. They could have called the retro car the Charger
something-or-other and everyone would have been happier.

Let's see...you mentioned that you were frustrated by the article,
then you spent the rest of your long-winded post talking about the
Challenger. Yet another pointless troll, in other words.

But thanks for reading. You're driving our Google numbers way up with
your obsession.

Glad to help.