Dead Dodge Walking:

[Intrepidation]

Dodge long ago confirmed that a convertible version of the Challenger was not going to happen, blaming the extreme degree to which the chassis would need stiffening if the roof were removed. Then what did members of the Michigan F-Body Association forum spot riding on a trailer around Auburn Hills, MI, home of Chrysler's headquarters? The pics don't lie, and they're telling us that Dodge did produce at least one Challenger Convertible in Lime Green that never saw the light of day. Numerous tuners have created convertible versions of the Challenger already, many of which debuted at last year's SEMA Show in Las Vegas, but an official version was never shown by Dodge. This one, which appears to be a concept rather than a preproduction vehicle, has been defaced with the word "SCRAP" spray-painted on its bumper and fenders. It's a sorry sight to see for any Challenger fanboy. By now, the Challenger Convertible has likely reached its destination and could be a cube of Lime Green scrap metal. Hopefully that's not the case and this car will wind up being the barn find of the century in 50 years.

Autoblog

[SAmadei]

That's a shame. Frigging lawyers ruin everything.

Is Lime Green going to be an offered color? I don't remember seeing that on a new Challenger.

You know, I realize the Challenger is supersized... seeing it parked or at the auto show doesn't really show its size... but following one (a silver one) on the freeway, it looks like an 1/43 scale car in a sea of 1/64 scale cars. Still looks cool... and the driver cranked it up to just under 100mph after I clicked by.

[Intrepidation]

I don't mind at all that it's a big car. The Challenger has always been a big boy.

Yes it is a damn shame this was canceled, and that this will be turned into scrap. Lime Green will probably offered as a special addition like the Charger Daytonas.

[Robert Hall]

Sad that the convert is not going to built. I love the 'bigness' of the Challenger and it's proportions...it's proudly large and RWD in a sea of boring, conformist FWD generics...they really stand out in traffic or in a parking lot amongst the generics.

[toesuf94]

You know. Cerebus is crying for money...this car looks complete. If they are hauling it to be crushed, why does it still have so much on it? The go-wing? 20-inch wheels? Deck lid, hood, doors? All of that could be re-used (I am assuming it probably has a driveline in it as well) on other project cars around the shop I would think (I know liability would keep those parts from seeing a customer car) This stuff all costs money!

And does anyone have any guess about the # 14 sprayed on the door? Are they keeping track of how many they are sending to the scrapper?

I am a Camaro fan, but I really got ill thinking that great looking car was heading to the crusher.

[the_yellow_dart]

Those taillights don't look like the normal Challenger ones. Yes I know the center light bar is missing, but I mean the outer lights themselves look different.

[G. David Felt]

Damn, That is a HOT Looking Convertible, So MUCH BETTER than the Muttang. Shame, I hope someone ignores the Legal bots and stores it in a barn to be recovered years down the road and restored.

Why could GM sell their only Duramax Diesel Suburban at auction and Chrysler could not? Hell GM has sold so many prototypes, I agree with many post that collectors would take full liability to buy this bad boy.

[Intrepidation]

I posted this on allpar and they are telling me that it was actually saved by Mopar Performance. It being on teh flatbed was most likely on its way there. This is further backed up because Chrysler has a crusher on site, so there wouldn't be a need to hail it somewhere to be scrapped. If that's the case it makes me happy to know it'll be saved, even if it's just one.

[CMG]

Did you ever see any of the video footage of any of the Chrysler Turbine cars of the 60's being crushed? It was NASTY.

I kinda thought something was odd with that pic above.

[G. David Felt]

Those taillights don't look like the normal Challenger ones. Yes I know the center light bar is missing, but I mean the outer lights themselves look different.

Nope I think you are wrong, if you go out to autoblog and look at the pic of right behind the car you will see the lights do match this, what is missing is the black trim around the lights as to why they look differant.

DF, thanks for the updated post, that is great if it was saved by Mopar Performance. A dying shame if they truly crushed this car.

[daves87rs]

I hope they saved it...

[SAmadei]

Sad that the convert is not going to built. I love the 'bigness' of the Challenger and it's proportions...it's proudly large and RWD in a sea of boring, conformist FWD generics...they really stand out in traffic or in a parking lot amongst the generics.

No, no... I get "big". I like "big". I own 6 B-bods from the '60s, '70s and '80s.

The original Challenger was big, but sleek and graceful.

The new Challenger, in real life, IMHO, is too chunky, slab-sided and the rear deck is too tall.

Muscle cars have an accepted size. The Challenger looks like it is based on a SUV.

Don't get me wrong, its still a bad-ass beautiful car, and with the crap going on at GM, it is one of the few non-GM cars in history I would consider buying. It's just shocking to see its size in real life. I'm sure I'll get used to it, however. It makes a good argument for getting a slimming black one.

[Intrepidation]

Too me it looks bigger in pictures than real life. But then I know it's based on a full size platform, so I don't walk into the showroom expecting something the size of a Cobalt.

[Camino LS6]

It would be an absolute sin to crush that car.

I hope it really has been saved.

[§carlet §wordfish]

Maybe they do intend to produce it, but Chrysler has a sick sense of humor and this is how they camouflaged it.

[Robert Hall]

No, no... I get "big". I like "big". I own 6 B-bods from the '60s, '70s and '80s.

The original Challenger was big, but sleek and graceful.

The new Challenger, in real life, IMHO, is too chunky, slab-sided and the rear deck is too tall.

Yeah, it's a bit chunky, slab-sided and the rear is tall..but, so are many cars today..that's the trend of the era, and Chrysler had certainly been a proponent of that trend (300, Charger, etc).

What amazes me is how tall many cars are today, from the bottom of the rear bumper to the top of the decklid...seemingly twice as thick vertically as a typical early '70s car...

[SAmadei]

What amazes me is how tall many cars are today, from the bottom of the rear bumper to the top of the decklid...seemingly twice as thick vertically as a typical early '70s car...

Very true. And yet with all that height, there is still questionable headroom in many cars. The '04 Grand Prix makes my '99 Bonne look low and sleek (The Bonne is almost 2 inches shorter), yet the Grand Prix has serious headroom issues. I believe in the Harley Earl mantra of longer, wider, sleeker. If your going to build a two ton vehicle, make it take up horizontal space, not vertical. Horizontal space is more usable for storage, at least. And with the exception of a couple cities, horizontal space is not a premium in the US.

I suppose the whole tall thing is a reaction to the SUVs... to enhance visibility and crash protection in cars that have to tangle with SUVs. I'll admit I get tired of looking up or around towering SUVs in my "low slung" cars (especially odd for me since I normally physically look down on 99.5% of people), but I choose cars to be car-like, not SUV-like.

[Robert Hall]

I suppose the whole tall thing is a reaction to the SUVs... to enhance visibility and crash protection in cars that have to tangle with SUVs. I'll admit I get tired of looking up or around towering SUVs in my "low slung" cars (especially odd for me since I normally physically look down on 99.5% of people), but I choose cars to be car-like, not SUV-like.

Yeah... and since I've been driving SUVs for my main vehicle for the last 15 years, I'm used to sitting up high in traffic..when I drive a car on the freeway, it feels very odd to be so close to the ground and not able to see over cars anymore...and my '87 Mustang GT and the '96 M3 I used to have aren't exactly low and sleek, but compared to my Jeep, they are.

It's funny, for a while over the last 6 months I would park in a parking garage, and parked next to typical modern cars, my sister's old Mercedes S-class that I often drive looked low and sleek...and it's a pretty blocky and upright '80s car. But today's Civics, Camrys, Accords, Malibus, etc are all considerably taller...part of that is probably the difference in wheel size between today and 25 years ago, but the bodies are so much taller on average today.

Edited March 19, 2009 by moltar