When these hit, the first ones will probably go for, what? You tell me; forty grand including "Greedy dealer/ Be the first on your block" upcharge.

Apart from numbers-matching-rotisserie-restored trailer queens, you can still buy a REALLY bit*hin' original muscle car for that kind of scratch.

I'd rather do that.

 

I had a '66 Fairlane GT in high school, and can echo the rigidity comment.

With the 390 4 speed, you couldn't wind past 3K in first gear or the body would wrap so far that it wouldn't come out of first gear. The gas tank was the trunk floor. No way that car would pass the crash tests for new cars today, the post seems a small price to pay to me.

DB

 

Buck, that must have been another one of "Fords" better ideas.
But if you check out my list of cars in the "Cars you've previously owned" post in the "Other cars" forum, you will see that I've owned 9 Mopars that were "true" hard tops. None had an engine smaller than a 383, (one was even a HEMI) and thanks to their "unibody" design they were all very rigid. Even the convertibles weren't that bad. Chrysler has been building unibodys since 1960, so they pretty much know how to do it right.
I'm not arguing the fact that a "sedan" is stiffer, and lighter. I simply said that I preferred the retro look of the hardtop design over that of a post coupe.
To be honest, I never really thought the Challenger would actually be built, and if it did, I didn't think it would ever be a "hardtop". Detroit has been out of the "Hardtop" business for a very, very long time.
If it's any consolation, There is a "rumor" that the engineer responsible for making the new Challenger a sedan, did so against his will.