| My departure from the cloistered world of automotive design was anything but pleasant: leaving the College for Creative Studies Perhaps you've never heard of Hovas' Hemi Hideout: so here's a slice of Mopar history worthy of a deep dive into the Vellum. Oh, thanks for the invite, Chrysler. An unforgettable face: the iconic 1968-1970 design was Chrysler's most memorable effort to spook insurance and safety special interest groups into forcing "better" vehicles on the public. Sure, we're better off now, but is a fragile chrome halo of a bumper really that useless? Isn't this bumper (and complex hidden headlights) worth the extra insurance premiums? Worth it to have a disturbingly clean and minimalist design? Probably not… But still, you can't argue with how stunning and shocking this is. While nothing like Marcel Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase, the Charger's front clip is a timeless work of art. The blackout grille extends over the headlights, encased in a deep silver rim, topped with a chrome bumper…wrapped up with a name: Charger R/T. This nose and this name made a promise to would-be new car racers of the era, and its aged phenomenally well. That said, my favorite grille of this body style was the cleanest: the 1968 Charger was the one to have. It makes the otherwise clean 1970 Charger look downright fussy! Things fall apart as you look closer, however. Maybe the solid grilles over the headlights look cheap, and the panel gaps are too sloppy. The round signal lights look like a leftover assembly from the 1950s. Or perhaps the license plate should be located even lower as to not interfere with the bumper's strong minimal form. Even though the front end looks flat from many angles… Note how the chrome bumper tapers in near the headlights, then pushes back out at the ends of the fenders. The silver rim accentuates this dance, ditto the fenders and hood. But that black sheet of grille? It peaks at the middle and nothing more. The different high/low spots are phenomenally beautiful, it is fantastically executed on this front fascia. The hood's recesses and that strong center mohawk add a bit of excitement to an otherwise far-too-subtle design for a Mopar Muscle car. If you had a problem with Mopar Minimalism! Somehow I doubt the meaty rubber trim does anything to protect the Charger's painted body from the front bumper. Not to mention the horrible fitment of this (replacement?) trim. I'd hate to be a broke-ass dude in the 1980s when someone slams their 5-mph bumper'd Monte Carlo into my otherwise cherry 1970 Charger. The damage would be extensive…and would go unrepaired!
Hood pins are cool…but following their cable to this horrendous gap in the rubber trim leaves much to be desired. Damn, son!
The only thing cooler than Rallye wheels and Goodyear white letter polyglass tires on this Charger would be the new-age 17″ repros with fat steel-belted rubber. I love the proportioning of a proper 1970s muscle car with 17″ rolling stock: it's perfection. The hard bend (with a slight upward angle) at the end of the fenders just "ends" me. It's another snapshot on vehicle design that emulates the timelessness of the infinity pool in modern architecture. Combine with the Charger's long front end and deep fenders (i.e. the space between the hood cutline and the end of the fender) and this is simply a fantastic element. The hood's negative areas add some necessary excitement, otherwise this would be too boring for an American muscle car. There's just too much real estate not to do…something! The signal repeaters at the beginning of the negative area's cove are a styling element that I wish could come back. But no, we need standard bluetooth and keyless ignitions instead…probably. I'd trade all that standard technology for a hood this menacing, this modern. Mid Century Muscle? Mad Men Mopar? Don Draper's mid-life crisis machine? All of the above.
A little faster A-pillar would also be nice, it's too static just like the cowl. But asking for such changes 40 years later is beyond idiotic. And while the R/T door scoop isn't nearly as hideous as the afterthought scoop on the 1999 Ford Mustang, you gotta wonder how "ricey" this looked to old school hot-rodders making sleepers out of Tri-Five Chevys and boring 1960s sedans. The pivot point for the vent window is an interesting bit of kit. Chrome elbow sleeves, because a computer couldn't bend/cut one piece of bling for us back then. Bummer. Yeah, the R/T's useless scoop is pretty much Muscle Car Rice. While it kinda accentuates the genesis of the door's muscular bulge, it's completely superfluous. Chrysler's side view mirrors for the time were pretty cool by themselves…but they didn't match the max wedge (get it?) demeanor of the front end. Note how the R/T scoop does match the contrasting muscular wedge of the door. Problem is, the scoop is obviously a tacked-on afterthought. Negative area like the hood was a smarter alternative. But the interplay between doors lower wedge and the strong upper wedge coming from the fender is quite fetching. As if the Charger is ripped from spending years a the gym. Yup, toned and perfected at the gym. Too bad the door handles belong on Grandma's Plymouth. Perhaps we all shamelessly raid the parts bin… The SE package was always the Super Classy Excellent model to have. The vinyl top, these "proto-brougham" emblems and the interior upgrades are totally worth it. What's up with the pure modern "SE" lettering with that almost malaise-y script below to explain what SE stands for? I'd cut the emblem in the middle and only use the upper half. I'd save the lower half for the disco era, natch. I mean, obviously! Vintage Mopar marketing sticker? Check. Classic Detroit is present in the Charger's profile. Long hood, long dash-to-axle ratio, long fastback roof, long quarter panels and a long deck. That's a lotta long! The only thing too short are those doors: the cutline should extend several inches back for maximum flow. And from the subtle curve in the front fender to the stunning hips above the rear axle, does the Charger ever flow! Aside from the obvious problem with rearward visibility, how can you hate this buttress'd roof? The fastback C-pillar is a long, daring and classy affair when trimmed with chrome and textured vinyl. Keeping the roof from being too boring was the rear window's use of a different vanishing point than the C-pillar, which translates into a different stop on the blue body. To make up for the different vanishing points, more chrome and vinyl. I can dig it, but perhaps such design novelties are better off on a less mainstream product. Or perhaps not…because how many people wanted a Charger back in 1970? And how many people want one now? Me thinks the number is exponentially higher today. Yes, I know these pictures suck. But you can't imagine how painful it was to coax a cheapie digital camera to do the right thing under the harsh lighting provided by half a million dollars worth of vintage neon lights. And now I hate neon lights. Chrome and vinyl: so happy together. The different vanishing points for the C-pillar and rear window make for a little problem: the trunk's cutline should be much closer to the rear window. And while that'd make a stupid-long trunk, it would look stupid cool.
Killed with fire. Or splashed with acid. Or whatever it takes for a Dermatologist to knock 'em off a beautiful body. A part of me wishes the Charger's back-end had the same round chrome bumper treatment as the front. And no chrome around the red tail lights. Actually just graft the front end entirely back here, and replace the black grille with red tail lights. A bit stupid perhaps, but it'd make a completely cohesive and eye-catching design. That said, the Charger ain't no slouch in the posterior. The vertical bumperettes need to find lodging elsewhere, ditto the round backup lights. But the space between the lights is the perfect location for a branding emblem, and the impossibly thin decklid looks quite sharp. There's a subtle dovetail at the end of the trunk, a nod to modern aerodynamic designs. I love it, don't you? Can't say the same for the undefined space between the rear bumper and the quarter panel. Yeesh, this was acceptable in 1970? The trunk's gap also leaves something to be desired. While I like the interplay between the chrome bumper and the tail light trim above the license plate area, it's a bit too subtle. Wait, did I actually mean what I said? The difference in "heights" at the license plate should either be a bit more aggressive, or completely, exactly the same as the rest of the light/bumper ratio. Maybe the crude black paint on the tail light's chrome trim is the byproduct of a terrible restoration…but considering factory correct restorations elsewhere include similarly sloppy craftsmanship to mimic the factory… Oh boy. The tail lights are sunken significantly into the body, just like the grille up front. Me likey enough to adore: such use of aggressive negative areas needs to come back in a BIG way. There's something about the chrome trim's application around the trunk lock… Even the camera-infurating action of all those neon lights can't hide the ugliness here. Maybe my idea of having an all-encompassing chrome bumper instead of chrome around the tail light isn't such a stupid idea after all. It'd certainly address this problem. The round backup light does this design no favors. Exposed screws on the chrome bezel makes it worse. Weren't there some square lenses Chrysler coulda parts-bin'd instead?
Thank you for reading, I hope you have a lovely week. from The Truth About Cars http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Vellum Venom: 1970 Dodge Charger RT-SE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Archive
-
▼
2013
(7180)
-
▼
September
(498)
- Lexus Adds Eight-Speed Auto to Rear-Drive 2014 GS350
- Name That Shifter, No. 147
- Buying In Bulk: Make a Deal at Costco, Without the...
- Nissan GT-R to Benefit from Williams F1 Hybrid Tec...
- Mercedes-Benz to Produce Limited Run of G63 AMG 6x...
- 2015 Chevrolet Suburban, Tahoe Video
- The Current Rogue is So Popular that Nissan Says I...
- Jeep Grand Wagoneer Returning Sometime After B-Seg...
- Ghost in the Machine: 2014 Rolls-Royce Wraith Driven
- The Europeans Show Ford & GM How Losing Money Is R...
- TTAC 24 Hours Update: The Benz We Didn’t Race And ...
- Recall Alert: 2009-2013 Mazda6 Sedans
- 2015 Mercedes-Benz C-class Sedan to Debut in Detro...
- GM to Constrain Dealer Orders of Brand New Silvera...
- PSA CEO Varin Says French Carmaker to Deepen Ties ...
- Cars.com Reviews the 2013 Volkswagen CC
- Piston Slap: The Awful Side Effect of Being Really...
- Confessions of a Conversion Van Driver
- Ford's Moving Assembly Line Turns 100
- What Does This Button Do?
- Why Do Police Cars Use Red & Blue Lights? They’re ...
- The Continental: More G-Wagens, the AMG GT, and BM...
- Which Cars Have Heated Seats with Separate Back an...
- Mini Details New Turbocharged Three- and Four-Cyli...
- Most-Read Car Reviews of the Week
- Does the 2014 Acura MDX Allow Third-Row Access wit...
- Should I Buy a V-6 or V-8 Hyundai Genesis Sedan?
- Most-Watched Videos of the Week
- Nissan Will Sell “Rogue Select” Alongside New Model
- TTAC 24 Hours Update: A Stand-In For The SLC
- Renault Duster Starts Losing Steam To Ford EcoSport
- Where There's Room for Negotiation When Buying a Car
- Junkyard Find: 1987 Plymouth Horizon
- Can the 2014 Subaru Forester Tow 2,000 Pounds?
- Details of Porsche’s Macan Crossover, Upcoming 911...
- Piëch Surprises VW, Announces High-Performance Duc...
- Are You James Hunt or Niki Lauda? Take Skip Barber...
- Mercedes-Benz “Chicken” Magic Body Control Commerc...
- 2015 Ford F-series Super Duty: Reworked Diesel, Be...
- Driven: 2014 Dodge Durango with New Eight-Speed Au...
- Cars.com Reviews the 2014 Nissan Versa Note
- Cars.com Reviews the 2014 Chevrolet Cruze Diesel
- Recall Alert: 2004-2005, 2007-2009 Toyota Sienna
- 2015 GMC Sierra 2500 / 3500 HD: The Silverado-Plus...
- Treasury To Sell Final Shares of GM
- 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe: More Photos
- Ballistic Supersedans Compared: 2014 Audi RS7 vs. ...
- 2013 Volkswagen Tiguan: Family Checklist
- China Renews Subsidies For EVs and PHEVs But Not C...
- Bark’s Bites: Attack Of The Killer Mustangs
- China’s Qoros Earns 5-Star Crash Rating in Euro NC...
- Nine Japanese Companies, Two Execs to Plead Guilty...
- Chrysler Restarts Second Shift At Toledo, Says It ...
- Junkyard Find: 1985 Chevrolet Corvette
- Editorial: Why Tesla Needs To Sell Cars Through Th...
- Will Auto Enthusiasts in 2053 See The Alfa Romeo 4...
- TTAC Manly Men Discuss “Girls’ Cars”
- IIHS Launches Crash-Prevention Ratings Program
- Volvo Considering Sending Concept Coupe to Production
- Feds Watching: Ford’s Run Around on “Chicken Tax” ...
- 2016 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 Spied: SVT’s 662-hp...
- Consumer Groups Sue Government Over Backup Camera ...
- 2015 Chevrolet Silverado 2500 / 3500 HD: The Towin...
- 2013 BMW 320i Tested: Basic, But Still a 3-series
- Interview: Rush Director Ron Howard Talks F1, Amer...
- Recall Alert: 2006-2010 Infiniti M
- Cars.com Reviews the 2014 Cadillac CTS
- Junkyard Find: 1971 Volvo 144
- Court Order May Finally Get Chicago EV Charging Ne...
- As UAW Uses German “Works Council” Model To Organi...
- Luxury-Car Prices Tumble Again in September
- Ten Things You Need to Know About the 2015 BMW M3 ...
- 2014 BMW 535d Diesel First Drive: The Most Satisfy...
- 2015 Lamborghini Deimos Spied: Dread and Terror Pe...
- Force de Frappe: French Cars in the 24 Hours of Le...
- 2014 Alfa Romeo 4C to Arrive in U.S. Next Spring, ...
- Alfa Romeo 4C Delayed, Again
- Lincoln Motor Company “Concierge” Commercial: Let’...
- Leasing Accounts For A Quarter Of New Vehicle Sale...
- iTunes Radio Launches Exclusively with Nissan, Sor...
- Chrysler IPO Latest Installment in UAW and Fiat’s ...
- 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK250 BlueTec Tested: Diesel Does
- Cars.com Reviews the 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe
- Moody’s Upgrades GM Credit Rating To Investment Grade
- Short Supply Issues Hamper Mazda Sales Growth
- Time Machine Challenge: What Would You Buy?
- 2014 Chevrolet Silverado: Real-World Mileage
- Piston Slap: Bad Vibes from The “Value” Timeline
- 2013 Toyota Sienna: Family Checklist
- Part 3: What Drives a Redesign?
- Review: 2014 Lexus LS 600hL (With Video)
- Chris Harris Likes The Alfa Romeo 4C
- Housekeeping: Popular Science Closes The Book On R...
- A Tale of Two BMW 3-series: A Chassis Rig Reveals ...
- First M-pressions: We Ride in, Gather Intel on New...
- 2012 BMW 328i Manual Long-Term Wrap-Up: Still the ...
- Name That Exhaust Note, Episode 200
- Meter’s Running! Ford Introduces Taxi Variant of 2...
- TTAC Is Going Racing. You Can Help, You Can Win So...
- 2014 Mazda3: More Photos
- Capsule Review: 2014 Mazda3
- Spiedered: 2015 Alfa Romeo Spider Caught Testing
- Gas Prices Down, Continue to Fall
- That “Small SUV” Coming From Chrysler Will Be A B-...
- When Will the 2014 Jeep Cherokee Arrive at Dealers...
- Dirt Don’t Hurt: Behind the Scenes of NASCAR’s Ret...
- 2014 Honda Odyssey Video
- Alfa Romeo 4C to Cost $54K in U.S. When It Arrives...
- Lamborghini Splits In Half. Somewhere Bela Barenyi...
- 2013 Toyota RAV4: Car Seat Check
- Part 2: The Life Cycle of a Redesign
- Are Backless Booster Seats Safe Enough?
- U.S. Customs Calls Ford’s Importing Transit Connec...
- Under Pressure From UAW VEBA, Chrysler Files For I...
- 2016 Chevrolet Corvette Z07 Spied Up Close: It Tak...
- 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo / Turbo S Cabriolet: For Th...
- Chrysler Files for IPO
- Editorial: Cherokee Delays Deserve Praise
- 2014 Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG: We’re Still Waiting to...
- Jeep Cherokee Production Delayed Due To “Extended ...
- High-Flying Hybrid: Honda Prices 50-mpg 2014 Accor...
- Celebrate Four Generations of Chevrolet Corvette S...
- Name That Shifter, No. 146
- Honda Picks Project Drive-In Final Four
- Mazda6 Diesel Delayed, but More Diesels Could Follow
- Fiat To Buy GM’s 50% Share of Diesel Engine Maker ...
- U.S. DoJ, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Inv...
- NAPA Ends Longtime Sponsorship With Michael Waltri...
-
▼
September
(498)








But it's less offensive when you step back a little.

































No comments:
Post a Comment