Good morning! This week we’ve been looking at cars that were the same price, but had nothing else in common, but today we’re not going to do that. I found two cars that are wildly different in price, but share a common theme: both are later, worse versions of famous muscle cars.
Yesterday’s coupes were more polarizing than I thought they’d be. Quite a few of you had some very strong opinions about each car, stronger than I expected, especially considering how lukewarm my feelings are about both of them. I didn’t actually know it was possible to have strong opinions about a final-generation Celica or Riviera. In the end, there were nearly twice as many fans of the Riviera, resulting in a comfortable win for a comfortable car.
The Buick is absolutely my choice as well, and unlike some of you, I don’t feel guilty about choosing the smooth-riding car at all. Harsh, modified sports cars are a young man’s game, and that’s not me any more, and I’m fine with it. Oh, and I suspect the reason the Buick’s air conditioning hasn’t been fixed is that the seller is just a flipper; it’s in exactly the condition they got it, and they’re not going to put any work into it.
The muscle car, as many fans knew and loved it, pretty much died after 1973. There were a lot of reasons: gas shortages and high prices following the 1973 embargo didn’t help, nor did impending safety and emissions standards. Also, word had gotten out about the frequency with which young drivers were ending up in ditches and wrapped around telephone poles in such cars, and insurance rates were through the roof.
But automakers, bless their hearts, weren’t ready for the party to end, so they just did the best they could with what they had. The results were less than inspiring. The most infamous of these post-muscle cars, of course, is the Ford Mustang II, but it was far from the only offender, and probably not even the worst. Let’s take a look at two other muscle-in-name-only cars from the era, from AMC and Dodge.
1977 AMC Hornet AMX – $4,200
Engine/drivetrain: 258 cubic inch OHV inline 6, four-speed manual, RWD
Location: Wadsworth, OH
Odometer reading: unknown
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The original AMX, produced for only a couple of years, was the product of AMC’s “make it cooler by making it shorter” philosophy of the late 60s and early 70s (see also: Gremlin). It was based on the Javelin, AMC’s answer to the Mustang and Camaro, but with a foot of length taken out of the middle, which also eliminated the back seat. AMC then shoved its biggest V8 into the stubby little car, and created one of the coolest muscle cars ever. This is not that car. This is a one-year-only revival of the AMX name, based on the Hornet hatchback, festooned with louvers and spoilers to make up for its lack of anything resembling power.
The AMX was available with either a 258 straight six or a 304 V8, but you couldn’t get a manual transmission with the V8. This one has a manual, which I’m not sure does all that much to help its performance, but at least it makes you feel like you’re helping out. This engine may not be powerful, but it is stout, and the seller says this one runs well. They were told the engine was rebuilt before they got it, and they’ve kept the juices flowing by driving it every once in a while.
It’s a bit grubby inside, but not actually in bad shape. It needs to be cleaned out; the footwells and trunk have become catch-alls for the sort of detritus that project cars attract, like that roll of electrical tape on the floor. But the dash and door panels look good. The driver’s seat has a couple of seams coming undone, but considering the car’s age and the era in which it was built, there’s nothing to complain about in here.
Outside, things aren’t as rosy. The paint is faded, and there are some rust bubbles coming through here and there. The bottom corners of the rear quarter panels show some amateurish rust repair that was painted over. I shudder to think what it looks like under those rocker panel extensions. And someone has gone a bit overboard with those Pep Boys stick-on chrome letters, but those should come off easily enough.
1981 Dodge Challenger – $9,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.6 liter OHC inline 4, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Hampton, TN
Odometer reading: 75,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Dodge Challenger as we know it today went out of production only a couple of years ago, with a series of fire-breathing special editions with more horsepower than gearheads of the 70s could have dreamed of. That car was an homage to the original Challenger, introduced in 1970, also ridiculously fast for its time if you checked the right boxes on the option form. In between, from 1978-83, Dodge applied the Challenger badge to this car, a captive import based on the Mitsubishi Galant.
Under the hood, where the once and future Challengers housed massive V8 engines capable of turning gasoline into tire smoke at alarming rates, this one has a Mitsubishi 2.6 liter four-cylinder engine making a meager 105 horsepower. Ironically, this engine has hemispherical combustion chambers, so it is technically correct, however disingenuous, to call it a “Hemi Challenger.” Doing so would probably not endear you to most Mopar fans, however. It runs and drives great, and the seller has a stack of receipts and records dating back to when it was new.
It’s pretty nice inside, and almost certainly better screwed together than Chrysler’s own efforts at the time. The Challenger was marketed as a sporty car; Plymouth’s version, the Sapporo, was more of a miniature personal luxury coupe. I gotta say, though, these seats look pretty comfy. The driver’s seat has one tiny tear in the fabric, but aside from that, the interior is in great shape.
It looks great outside, and the seller says it has been garaged its whole life. I always really liked the style of these cars, and I’m a sucker for two-tone paint. The off-brand white letter tires on those excellent factory alloy wheels are a nice touch, too. With the propensity to rust that these cars had, this is probably one of the nicest ones left.
These cars make me think of the Tennyson poem “Ulysses“: “Though much is taken, much abides, and though / We are not now that strength which in old days / Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are.” If you judge them against their earlier counterparts, they are found terribly wanting. But what if you take them at face value, exactly as they are? Can you ignore their famous names and find something redeeming in them? Or, if not, which one strikes you as less of an affront to its heritage?
Having owned a 1978 Challenger while going to university, I can say that there is no way any Challenger is worth $9k. At $3k, it’d be an easy winner here.
The Hornet does seem mostly complete, the presence of a mid-70s Wagoneer in the background suggests the owner knows their way around an AMC product, and I support the 4.0LHO swap. But the bodywork is troubling, those front buckets are out of a Dodge Daytona (the K-car one) … and more worrisome, by the time I got to the ad, the seller was asking $6,500 “or best offer.”
At $4,200, the AMX would be worth a look. At $6,500 in that condition, it’s a “no” from me, dawg.
Mind you, the Galant Lambda is also overpriced, but it’s way cleaner, and I always liked them. We’ll take the Mitsu.
$9k for that Challenger? What are they smoking?
Having driven a Sapporo, you couldn’t pay me to drive the Dodge.
The AMX 100%, once brought back to it’s former glory and with a big V8 it’ll be an absolute hoot.
I’d get the AMX with the explicit knowledge it’s going to be re-invented. Bringing it here to the land the rust forgot and making it better. Turn it into a handsome driver and find a way to make its pace match the looks.
A co-worker in the early 90’s had a Challenger (or Sapporo). It was rough, but the few times I rode in it I was taken by how smooth the engine was- and at the time I drove a 83 Civic which I always thought whisper-smooth like a sewing machine. These had the Mitsubishi “silent shaft” treatment, and by golly it worked. I’m also going to vote for the Challenger because it’s a hardtop at a time when the style had largely fallen aside. I love AMC’s too, but I just can’t get that worked up about an old Hornet. (a hatchback AMX (Spirit) or a kammback Eagle SX/4 would be a different story.)
AMX, I don’t care how rusty it is or that it’s a 6 cylinder. It’s got a stick, and while over the top on styling, it at least looks cool.
Those FWD Challengers were so boring looking that they could’ve been prescribed as a cure for insomnia.
They are RWD…but they are boring.
The Challenger isn’t a bad car, but it’s just too much. Comparably priced, it’d be alright, and I’d complain the AMC is too high. Which it is, but it got my vote today. Who knows how bad the rust is, but it’s more fun to imagine doing something to.
I now recall a step mom with one of the Sopporo version of that challenger, it was completely forgettable and I would probably not even consider it when flipping through ads, however the little hornets with lipstick on those little pigs are intriguing. I always kind of thought a rusted out later year YJ could donate an HO4.0 tot he cause and it might be interesting to see how it went. Clifford makes a header for those rugged sixes as well, so it might be fun to play with the AMX if the price could be made right.
Challenger, I always did kinda like the Mitsubishi based ones. Might be overpriced but ain’t like the AMC is a screaming good deal, looks like a neglected rolling pile of sketch at best repairs.
The AMX Hornet is at least priced right. That guy selling that Challenger needs to drop a zero from his asking price.
By the way, my nominee for the saddest muscle car is the 1974 Pontiac GTO, a compact with little to set it apart from an ordinary Ventura other than a few badges and a functional Shaker hoodscoop.
True about the ’74 Goat. The 1973-only Colonnade GTO was one of the handsomest ones they ever made (and was *supposed* to have gotten the SD-455!), then the 1974 was an insulting “AYFKM” of an end to one of the most legendary American cars ever made.
I call that one the Pontiac GTFO.
GTFO of here, gradually.
Is that Mitsubishi based Challenger the predecessor to the Starion/Conquest? It might actually not be that bad. Not for 9 grand, but just in general
Given their placement, their removal will likely take whatever is underneath them along for the ride.
$9,000 for the Mitsubishi Charger is a no for me dawg. I hate the AMX but it’s half off.
The AMX can apparently fit a V8.
Anyway Hotrod inline sixes are a thing.
Often underestimated for their smoothness.
Yeah, but it’ll still look like…. that.
The body could be de- whatever that is?
I’m buying the neutered AMX,breaking out the cut offs,and going Road Runner hunting.It may be low power but it will run forever and definitely turn heads.The Challenger just has no pizazz and it’s way overpriced.
This is a neither day. I know the feel of being in 70s AMCs and 80s Dodges. No thank you, I would rather walk.
AMX. Because 4-speed, and because I remember an article from years ago about how easy it is to swap in the bombproof Jeep 4.0, which already felt surprisingly quick in my 1995 Cherokee Sport, and would probably feel even quicker closer to the ground with row-your-own gears.
The 1978-83 “Japallenger” has offended my sensibilities for decades now. No thank you.
The “Challenger” is ridiculously overpriced, of course. The “AMX” is even worse on that count, though, as I wouldn’t be seen in that thing. Bright yellow, with all kinds of graphics and accessories that scream, “I think I’m a fast car!” and a complete inability to back that up. Any amount of money is way too much for a car I wouldn’t ever drive.
AMX tho I prefer the later Spirit based ones if I’m going peak malise muscle. TIL there was a mitsu based challenger! and it is but ugly, plus a auto? no thank you!
The Gala…..um…Challenger has service records and is in better shape.
Neither of these are fast or fun cars to drive, so I’ll take the one that has actually been mainatined properly.
I honestly didn’t know this one year version AMX existed until today.
Put me down for the Mitz. Back in HS when I was rolling around in my Conquest TSi my buddy had a Sapporo which runs the same engine even if it’s missing the turbo.
I like yellow cars.
“this one has a Mitsubishi 2.6 liter four-cylinder engine making a meager 105 horsepower. Ironically, this engine has hemispherical combustion chambers, so it is technically correct, however disingenuous, to call it a “Hemi Challenger.” Doing so would probably not endear you to most Mopar fans”
Sounds perfect. At 1/100th the price.
This is a nope nope nope day for me. The AMX would have won for at least looking the part, but badly repaired rust tells me it’s junk. The Dodge is completely undesirable as anything beyond a cheap beater. $9,000 for that sadgasm? Ick. The seller must be higher than Snoop Dogg on 4/20. Or 4/21, 4/22, etc.
There’s a lot of “I know what I got” energy in that Challenger pricing – are they kidding? Meanwhile I know it’s malaise-era junk but If find the AMX somewhat visually appealing.
Sometimes it comes down to looks. These are both overpriced but the AMC is painfully hideous to behold, and in ratty condition, whereas the well-cared-for Challenger is a great-looking coupe just begging for a drivetrain swap.