Autocross: Honda Odyssey Vs Dodge Charger Daytona

[pagani]

American muscle car vs honda minivan on a auto x course.
Shows how far we have come in 40 years of engineering.

Autocross: Honda Odyssey Vs Dodge Charger Daytona - YouTube

Autocross: Honda Odyssey Vs Dodge Charger Daytona - YouTube

[graywolf624]

One thing really bugged me about this vid.. They hit up the daytona for its 14" wheels. That has jack to do with why the daytona is worse.. in fact 14" would be better then the bigger wheels if they were just as wide and had weight equivelent of a modern 14" wheel.

Other then that.. well duh.. its a 1970s car.

[RC45]

Why the Charger? It was far from the "most iconic" muscle car.

Wonder what the outcome woul dbe if the "test" was repeated with a 1969 302ci Z/28.

[ferrarif1fan89]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 One thing really bugged me about this vid.. They hit up the daytona for its 14" wheels. That has jack to do with why the daytona is worse.. in fact 14" would be better then the bigger wheels if they were just as wide and had weight equivelent of a modern 14" wheel. Other then that.. well duh.. its a 1970s car.

What i think he meant is that the smaller wheel has taller, less modern tires with lots of sidewall flex, which can spoil the handling. I'm not saying thats the reason, I'm saying thats what I think he meant.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by ferrarif1fan89 What i think he meant is that the smaller wheel has taller, less modern tires with lots of sidewall flex, which can spoil the handling. I'm not saying thats the reason, I'm saying thats what I think he meant.

But if they really wanted to choose one of the icon muscle cars, then what about the Z/28 - they came with 15" wheels hehe

[ViperASR]

Originally Posted by RC45 Why the Charger? It was far from the "most iconic" muscle car. Wonder what the outcome woul dbe if the "test" was repeated with a 1969 302ci Z/28.

it would probably still be very close, with the minivan possibly still coming out on top. The test was meant to show how far technology has come in 40 years, and that a modern minivan can beat a 60s muscle car.

Come on man, you could just give Honda some props, its a damn good car.

[RC45]

Originally Posted by ViperASR it would probably still be very close, with the minivan possibly still coming out on top. The test was meant to show how far technology has come in 40 years, and that a modern minivan can beat a 60s muscle car. Come on man, you could just give Honda some props, its a damn good car.

Sure - the minivan is a "damn good car", but I have to believe that test was rigged a little, as choosing the Charger Daytona was a very odd one - there are Chevy, Ford and even AMC musclecars that are better representatives of the era, especially aorund some cones in a parking lot - I mean would you expect the same result if they chose an A/C Cobra or 250 GTO?

Maybe it is a better indicator o fho wtyre technology has progressed over 40 years.

And I am confused as to why they loaded the car up with 4 chickas anyway - all the stuff I found abotu the Odyssey is that it already weighs more than the Charger. Hhmmm

The Winged Daytona - in 18 glorius feet - was purpose built to homologate the design and drive train for the Superspeed way - not exactly the best tool to take the autox track

But it still made for fun TV - no arguing that point

The 1969 Dodge Charger 500 & Daytona Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 117 Weight, lbs: 3,740 Number built: 895 Base price: $5,261 Top Available EngineType: ohv V-8 Displacement, cid: 426 Fuel system: 2 x 4bbl. Compression ratio: 10.25:1 Horsepower @ rpm: 425 @ 5000 Torque @ rpm: 490 @ 4000 Representative Performance 0-60 mph, sec: 5.7 0-100 mph, sec: 12.9 1/4 mile, sec. @ mph: 13.92 @ 104.5 Braking, 60–0 mph: couldnt find shite Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: nothing easily found

The 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 Specifications Wheelbase, inches: 108.1 Weight, lbs: 3,765 Number built: 20,302 Base price: $3,185 Top Available Engine Type: ohv V-8 Displacement, cid: 302 Fuel system: 2 x 4 bbl. Compression ratio: 11.0:1 Horsepower @ rpm: 290 @ 5800 Torque @ rpm: 290 @ 4200 Representative Performance 0-60 mph, sec: 7.4 0-100 mph, sec: 16.5 1/4 mile, sec @ mph: 15.12 @ 94.8 Braking, 60–0 mph: 170 ft Roadholding, 200-ft-dia skidpad: 0.8 g

The 2006 Honda Odyssey Specifications Wheelbase: 118.1 in Curb weight: 4645 lb base price: $37,490 Top Available Engine Type: SOHC 24-valve V-6 Displacement: 212 cu in Fuel System: port fuel injection Power (SAE net): 244 bhp @ 5750 rpm Torque (SAE net): 240 lb-ft @ 4500 rpm Representative Performance 0-60 mph: 8.6 sec 0-100 mph: 24.1 sec ¼-mile: 16.7 sec @ 84 mph Street start, 5–60 mph: 8.9 sec Standing Top speed (drag limited): 119 mph Braking, 70–0 mph: 190 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.77 g

[pagani]

This just a video to show how much that cars have changed over 40 years time not a race.
If i had to pick one of those cars.
I would be the 69 camaro because that was about the only car that had proper handling.

[loliea]

And how about testing these on a ring like Indianapolis? That's what the Daytona has been designed for.
If they wanted to have the Odyssey bitten by a 40 year old car on an autocross track they should have picked the lotus 7...

[m0ng0l01dz]

Topeka has some ugly strippers.

[79TA]

^^^ lol

Yea, it was "rigged" in that they chose a muscle car not at all designed for autocross. Another factor not mentioned, although huge, was rubber. If I'm not mistaken, that Daytona Charger was on period-correct bias ply tires. Any modern radial is light years ahead of bias ply street tires. This is yet another example of the improvements made over the last 40 years.