I don’t like things that are made to resemble other things. An object should look like the object it is, not appear to be something else. For example: a telephone should look like a telephone. I don’t want one that looks like a Ferrari Testarossa. Or a cheeseburger. Or Garfield. Actually thinking about it … the landline phone industry has a lot to answer for here. Maybe the business of making telephones got too boring so instead of improving the design and aesthetics engineers just started sticking phone guts into any old plastic crap they could get away with. Likewise, those hi-fi systems that look like a gigantic can of Coke. What point does such an object have as a consumer good? Why do these novelty aberrations exist beyond pleasing the type of grown adults who eat rainbow colored breakfast cereal during the day?
I was watching a vintage electronic restoration show the other night, and the presenter was wanting to indulge in some pointless nostalgia by buying an old Scalextric set. Entering a money-for-old-rope emporium, not only was the host staggered to learn slot car racing was a 1960s invention and not the eighties, he was enthralled by a transistor radio in the form of a Robinson’s juice carton. It was like watching a seal clapping at a fresh bowl of fish heads. Where do producers find these people, and how do they end up on the screen? More importantly, why haven’t I got a cushy television gig like that?


Anyway, being autistic, what this all means is that my brain is not programmed to manage life and all its messy unpredictability at anything other than face value. If someone says they are going to do something and that doesn’t happen, or something doesn’t work the way it is meant to, the bad wiring in my head has a short circuit. Which instantly externalizes as me being oversensitive or an intolerant asshole. But this is an involuntary reaction to the anguish and confusion roiling inside my frontal lobes. When I was at Land Rover, a couple of times my manager had to kick me under the table for being a bit too blunt to the other people around the table whom I thought were not keeping up or not doing their bloody jobs. Like I say – an intolerant asshole.

Reverse Cosmetic Surgery
Therefore, as a designer, I value honesty and integrity in the creation and appearance of products. To get to the point, it’s one of the reasons I harbor a visceral dislike of hidden rear door handles – on a small level they are subterfuge, but also because pillar position, proportions, and category define whether a car should have two or four doors. Not some cheap tromp l’oeil trick and what, four- and five-door cars can’t be cool or look great? It’s dishonest bullshit. So when I see a car trying to look like a completely different car I immediately find myself needing to lie down in a dark room with a large bottle of something to ease the pain. Like Laudanum.
I’m not talking about playing mix and match with parts and trim to build your ideal version of a car that was never available from the factory. Dropping a different engine and transmission combo from elsewhere in the range is fine by me because if I had the money and time, I’d be building a Mk3 Ford Capri 2.8 injection with the later Scorpio 2.9 24-valve Cosworth engine in it. No, what’s putting the sand in my clams this week is another American Frankenstein: a poor 2022 Dodge Challenger that’s undergone reverse cosmetic surgery in an attempt to make it look like a 1971 Plymouth ‘Cuda.

Now look, I get it. I really do. When the Camaro and the Challenger both reappeared in 2009, suddenly it was like 1969 all over again for fans of traditional American muscle. There wasn’t quite the same variety as there was back then because so many manufacturers had revved their last in the intervening years, but enthusiasts clamoring for V8 performance in a modern daily driver never had it so good. The fans of this type of car can be tribal in their brand loyalty so if you weren’t a Ford, Chevy or a Dodge person you were shit out of luck. There are lots of these modern versions of an old model about with varying degrees of success, so clearly the demand for this sort of fake is out there: you can get a Firebird, a GTO and even a misguided attempt at a Chevelle. A modern Plymouth ‘Cuda based on the then-current Challenger has been rumored for years, but one enterprising shop got fed up of waiting and took matters into their own hands.
Understanding What Is Wrong
Since I’m a Plymouth fangirl, this is something I completely understand, but I want a proper OEM ‘Cuda, not a half-assed, badly designed hodge-podge of old and new. When you look at this recreation, your initial reaction might well be, huh yeah, that looks quite cool and well executed, although let me tell you that was a long way away from my initial reaction. This isn’t as bad as the white FrankenChallenger I ranted about a while back, but that was a homebuilt effort and this one was made by a professional custom shop, which should mean a better result. But for what this thing cost, not being as shit as something one guy could have drunkenly knocked up in his garage during his evenings is not fucking cricket my friends.



The first problem is this looks like a ’71 ‘Cuda that’s swallowed a modern Challenger whole without chewing. It is so bulky and fat that Thanos would have to snap twice. In the front view, you can see the bodysides now stick out a long way from the glasshouse. The reason for this is because they’ve extended the bodywork from the bottom of the side window outwards in the Y-axis. The fender line now must rise vertically to meet this so the hood has to come up as well, and it’s completely flat with no variation in Z height across the surface. On the Challenger, the hood and the fenders are much lower – you can tell by the way the hood curves upwards to meet the cowl. This trick is partly hidden in the middle of the hood by extending the power bulge backwards towards the windshield.


Part of the reason for them doing this is to give them enough real estate – i.e. enough sheet metal, to play around with the surfaces to create the classic ‘Cuda Coke bottle hips. I get why they did this but the implementation is too rigid and brutal. The lines are too stiff and the curves need more ‘lead in’ – the radii should be softer and blend in and out more progressively. A sweeping corner rather than a sudden kink. Because the fender line at the front has risen, the whole of the back end has to come up to match. The problem with this is it’s led to entirely too much sheet metal (actually carbon) above the feature line running down the length of the car – so it looks under wheeled and flabby. Sorting out the front wheel arch so its not on the piss and then expanding the openings out a bit to keep it all in proportion would help, but because this car uses the existing Challenger body-in-white structure with new carbon fiber panels bonded on top, it wasn’t possible.


Before we send this thing off to fat camp, there’s a couple more chubby rolls of flab we need to poke at. The area below the rear bumper should have a much better defined shape rather than just lazily rolling away from under the bumper – it’s way too soft and soggy, making ‘Cuda look like it hasn’t had its diaper changed for a week. Finally, the rear side glass has had its shape altered and surface area reduced to better resemble the original ‘Cuda. Now the C pillar is much wider making the rear compartment more claustrophobic. There’s just not enough side glass to balance out the body color, adding to the visual weight problem.
Details Are Not Details
So the proportions are off, making the whole car look too heavy and underwheeled, but that’s not the end of my problems. Not by a long shot. I’ve got the knife in this far; I might as well push it up to the hilt. One of the problems I often find with custom-made cars is that not enough attention has been paid to the details – the little things that you might miss first time around but you are likely to spot over time. This happens because the little stuff is insanely hard to get right. As Charles Eames said – “the details are not the details. They make the design.” Is that the nit-picking train I hear pulling into the station? Yes, it is, so come onboard.


Let’s start off where we left off with the new side glass. Leaving aside for a moment the new glazing has a different color tint to the OEM glass, it looks like they’ve installed it by simply bonding it on top of the existing opening, which means the glazing is not flush across the two windows, giving an inconsistent highlight. On the Challenger proper, you can see both side windows flush with each other, and the rear glass is sealed into the underlying structure as opposed to on top of it. The upper radius of the new rear glass is far too sharp, breaking visual consistency with the window line at the top of the A-pillar. And the Hemi side graphic doesn’t have a consistent gap from the top and rear edges of the fender, making it look like it’s been slapped on in the wrong position.

Let us refresh our espressos and wander around to the front. The first thing I noticed, because it jumped out a mile off the screen, was that the front bumper and grille panel are badly lopsided. I know how this happened, which I’ll talk about in a bit, but first let’s look at the headlights. The grill opening is far too big because extending the bodywork in width (Y-axis) and raising the hood/fender line upwards (Z-axis) opened up the whole front of the car. The standard lights with their cut off top now exposed look lost in all that black carbon, making the down-the-road graphic appear cross-eyed like the unfortunate Leyland P76. For fucks sake put some bigger, completely round light units in there. There must be something suitable available off the shelf.


The situation doesn’t improve at the ass end either, which is more drunken than me after making through another week at The Autopian. The left hand side of the rear panel is lower than the right, which makes the lower line of the bumper look crooked in the opposite direction. The intersection of the rear fender and bumper is a horrible collision of mismatched surfaces and radii, the exhaust tips don’t match, and it’s all just a horrible mess.
How Much?
Now, you might think I’m being overly harsh here and that the person who commissioned this car wouldn’t notice all the things I’ve pointed out or did and isn’t bothered by them. And this is a fair comment. But this car was offered for auction back in January and didn’t sell at $275k. It’s now up for sale again. I’ve just been on the Autotrader website, and 2022 Hellcat prices are a bit all over the place, but there’s a zero miles one available for $75k. According to the listing, there are 3000 hours of labor in this car. So that works out to roughly $65 per hour, which for a skilled builder doesn’t sound like anywhere near enough. And we haven’t accounted for materials, which are all carbon fiber molded panels. So it’s a fair guess that the original purchase price of this car was above that $275k figure originally. This must be getting on for a half-million dollar build. For that much, in my opinion, you need to be getting everything spot on. Now I’ve watched the build video for one of these cars, I think I understand how the panels ended up all lopsided.

What the builders seemed to have done was cut off all the external sheet metal, leaving the inner structure untouched. They then laboriously hand-fabricated from sheet metal new bodywork, snipping out panels and tack welding them into place, before grinding the joints smooth.
Then the lot was covered in filler before being sanded back, and those new surfaces used as the basis to make the molds for the carbon bodywork. It’s a time-honored method of doing things, and on a wonky old ’71 ‘Cuda which was not even straight when it rolled out the factory you might get away with it. The thing is, if you’re building on top of a new OEM vehicle, as opposed to restoring an older one, you should be using as near to OEM methods as possible, because the build quality is so much better than it used to be.
Do It Digitally First
A better way of doing this would have been to purchase a complete CAD model of a modern Challenger. If that’s not possible, then scan a Challenger with the external sheet metal removed and build a proper A-class surface model to that. You’ve then got your own set of data for your design. All the checking for dimensional accuracy, highlights, and panel gaps can be done digitally before a single part is made. This data can then be used to create prototype parts to allow a physical sanity check, and then the molds by milling out hard foam the same way OEMs do. Get the thing off its wheels and make sure it’s level, and then use easily available tools to check, recheck, and check again to make sure it’s all correct. It’s more consistent, accurate, and, importantly if you’re producing a small run of cars, repeatable. Because as you can see:



The builders of this car didn’t pull it all out of their asses and totally design the thing by eye on a full size car. From my rigorous journalistic investigation, a sketch was commissioned, and it is surprisingly good even if the style is a bit contrasty and corny. What might have happened is that, once the builders had the sketch and were happy with it, they took it from there – because they used an illustrator not a car designer. Compare the sketch to the finished car, and the difference is stark. I’m always banging on about it, but coming up with ideas and doing the splashy sketches is only one part of the designer’s job. The designer should be involved at every stage from conception to completion, making sure nothing is fouled up or just left to be good enough. I spent hours every day for over a year supervising hard models and then prototype Defenders.
I don’t want you thinking I’m automatically against this sort of redo – the Japanese have been at it for years, but I consider that typical Japanese whimsy and theirs are fun. Who could resist a Jimny playing dress-up as a G-Wagen? And those kits all look to be exceptionally high quality. Muscle cars are closer to my heart so it’s no shock that’s why this Mopar shitbeast has raised the hackles of my mohawk so high.
It might cost you a few thousand dollars to get an accurate digital model built, but over a run of ten cars that’s a small investment considering the purchase price. Getting a proper designer with OEM experience contracted in once or twice a week to keep an eye on things wouldn’t be a bad idea either. The errors on this ‘Cuda wouldn’t be acceptable on a twenty-five grand car new car – so they are not acceptable on one on a two-hundred-and-fity grand one.
Thanks for letting me know I might be somewhere on “the spectrum.” I was a journalist and then a software engineer. So precision was important. And yes, I have caught myself being an intolerant asshole.
‘Cudas, Challenger and Chargers were never my thing. As a 12-year-old, I was buying British car magazines with my lawn-mower money. And I wanted a Mercedes 300 SEL 6.3. But I didn’t have the $14K or even a Driver’s License at that point, so it’s all moot.
I wouldn’t buy that thing for $2,750, let alone $275K. Well, I might to part it out, but my condo is not really set up for that. The photo with it in matte dark gray (3rd image in the article) looks undeniably cool, but also impossible to keep looking that nice.
Yup, I totally agree with everything you’ve said here. The standard Challenger looks great, but this thing is a mess.
Adrian, on your point about “things made to look like other things”, how do you feel about the plastic “checker plate” on the wings of the L663?
I’m not trying to be rude, I’d just love to hear your thoughts on it and how it was decided to be included.
As a trim garnish, and a piece of visual interest I think they are fine. And they are a bit of a callback to previous Defenders. There was some debate about them because they are a sort of visual indication that “it’s okay to climb on the hood and stand here. What they really give you is the opportunity to swap them out for different pieces according to trim level/model. Whether LR will or not I don’t know. A version I proposed did away with them for hood vents.
Really interesting, thanks for the explanation.
I hadn’t realised they were actually suitable to stand on – I’m impressed!
I’ll be curious to see if the aftermarket comes out with different versions.
I didn’t think that the car design was all that bad — until we got to the taillights/back. The back end/taillights are horrendous.
They’re not really shown in the build videos so I didn’t want to comment, but it looks like simple acrylic covers over of the shelf LED units.
This was so much fun to read that I had to log in and say it made my day.
Thank you glad you enjoyed it.
Thanks for pointing to me what was bothering my brain but I couldn’t quite figure it out. It is kind of humbling to realise you can learn to refine your taste, like any other ability. My head would say “fine” if I saw this car on the street yesterday, but now I will know what is wrong and why, and will pay attention next time.
I looked at a Challenger I was considering buying today. It didn’t work out so I was feeling pissy. I come home and see that someone whored this one up. The world is a tacky place. It’s like tube tops.
Sure, you could spend like a grand and just slap an aftermarket ‘Cuda grille, tail, and stripes on a Challenger, but this gets you a better build board for cruise nights, and really, isn’t that worth $200k?
Adrian, one thing you didn’t talk about that really fucks it up is the front airdam situation. The original sketch has a proportional inlet that’s maybe 90-95% of the vertical scale of the grille. That, along with the airdam and fake loop bumper being probably 105% of the vertical scale of the grille inset gives it some balance. There’s a bit of visual padding around the openings. With the bandsaw cut setup they went with you have a Pontiac style Bunkie beak underneath which puts all the visual weight directly beneath the headlights on either side of it and makes the front look taller than it really is. Having negative space above the brake ducts on either side and having them pull the beveled corners of the inlet make this effect even worse, because it has the same disorienting perspective effect as using a fish-eye lens.
The other thing is that the sketch wedges the profile. The rear is taller than the front, evidenced by the… What are those, 23s? At the rear. Meanwhile the front has 19s or 20s, which wouldn’t be possible if both wheel wells were the same size. The rear of the sketch is also narrower than the real car and definitely narrower than the modified end result, but the wide tires and incorrect perspective for said tires obscure that. It makes the curve of the fake rear loop bumper much more subtle, and doesn’t interfere with the frankly way too large negative space on the rear.
I think the front three quarter sketch is fine (apart from the style). The rear three quarter one has too much perspective because it was done over a photo taken at a wide angle from low to the ground – again this is because they used an illustrator rather than a designer. You’d never do a sketch like that in a studio – because one of jobs of a sketch is to give a modeler a clear idea of the designers intent.
I think the issue with the vents (apart from the central one having a massive gap in the center) is they’re used a bright grill material, which draws attention to them. The actual shapes themselves are not great and could do with being a bit more sympathetic with the bodywork, but again, this is why you use a designer.
Maybe don’t make the wheel wells tiny so it looks like product of someone ordering giant ricer rims like it going to the local bad autoshow. It’s not going to look like the oem which has to deal with tire chains and other things.
They couldn’t change the wheel wells because of the existing inner underneath. I mentioned this in the article.
Since Garfield phones were invoked, I want to link to a story about the French beach where said phones regularly washed up.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47732553
All I can see is the tiny lights lost in the newly massive grille.
I actually wonder what this would look like in person. The regular Challenger is mildly porky, and this is clearly thicker, but photos kind of hide the size apart from a couple hints.
Looking at the first front 1/4 I didn’t think it was that bad, but yeah, it’s pretty awful once you take a closer look, and all the other angles are so much worse.
So many things went wrong in this build, and a few things should have made that clear from the start.
First, they should have checked the wheelbase, which is easily googled to be 108 inches for a ‘Cuda, and 116 inches on a new Challenger. That’s a noticeable difference which you can’t just cheat your way around.
The next step would then be to shorten the car, (or if you’re insane, scale up every other piece of the design to fit the wheelbase, including headlights and wheels)
Cutting it vertically through the C-pillar would have meant a lot more work, but would make the roof an C-pillar a lot lighter.
Getting the headlights wrong is either lazy, or they had a sponsor demanding that they used the stock lights for some reason? With this budget it should be possible to find some aftermarket light that does the job better.
Getting the Hemi graphic on the quarters wrong is just baffling? I have no words…
I’m tempted to do a quick digital drawing to fix some of the mistakes.
I’m pretty sure it could have been done better, but I’m also afraid that you can’t make nice looking Cuda wheel openings work on a wider chassis with modern wider wheels.
PS; I wouldn’t recommend the Cosworth V6 in a Capri if you want it to handle, as the twincam heads on what is essentially the same block as the 2.8 makes it quite a bit heavier (similar or slightly heavier than a 5.0 smallblock). The added torque and worsened weight distribution would make it a great burnout machine though.
(I spent a few years planning to tune up the 2.8i from one of my XR4is, and I even have complete Cosworth internals with the crank machined to fit the older cam drive to stroke up the 2.8 , but buying a house and raising kids felt more important and the time)
I’ll fill the spare wheel well with cement.
It’s ironic that they chose a car that already had too much bodywork above the feature line. I’ve been wanting to see a stock challenger with about 3-4’’ of sheetmetal removed from the midsection for years. Alas, I’m too lazy to teach myself photoshop so I guess I won’t be doing it anytime soon. It’s already been since 2009? Yikes. If it were slimmer, it would look long and graceful like the original Chargers and Challengers and so on. Adrian, please do that for us all! Hack away at it’s flabby muffin top.
Note to Mercedes: Do not show your PC Cruiser to Adrian lest it wind up under the heel of his gothy boot!
I have to be nice to her otherwise she’ll spank me with her HR ruler.
It’s interesting when you see a modern Challenger and vintage Challenger together and how much bigger and bulbous the modern version is. It’s the same with the Mustang. The originals were much cleaner thinner designs.
What were once pony cars have since morphed into what could more accurately be referred to as Clydesdales.
This is destined to be the toast of the Applebee’s parking lot in The Villages, Fl.
I thought you were being way too harsh, then I read more, you were actually kind.
What I’m seeing here is they took a boomer bait car then rebodied it using boomer era techniques and the whole thing fucked off spectacularly into a pile of tragedy.
Well said
The only ones who could afford this happen to be boomers whose aging eyesight will trick them into thinking it looks fine.
It’s funny, you lost me at the beginning because my first thought was: “hey, that Garfield phone was kind of cute in a corny way.” Then I thought about whether I had ever bought anything like that for myself – never. Then I thought about my life as a designer, would I ever do something like that to someone else – hell no. Yeah, it was a bad idea, badly executed.
But like what Andrea said up there, the phones were to capture a market, not some sort of style exercise. There were certainly those happening at the same time, cheeseburgers and Garfield they were not.
But a Garfield phone is the ONLY way to make the call to reform the ninja empire.
(I wonder if anyone’s going to get that reference.)
Ninja Terminator
Sometimes things are better left undone.
Oh God now I can’t unsee all this… I clicked on this link while eating lunch thinking it would be a lite read. Only at the last minute did I notice it was written by the Prince of Design Darkness himself, and once again I found my self scrolling up and down and staring until enlightenment strikes and I get it.. Crap, next thing I know I learned stuff… I admit, it did look good until I was able to truly “see” and OMG..
Yeah this is substantially worse than either a new Challenger, or an old Challenger/’Cuda by themselves all while being more a more expensive and worse product because of it.
Pretty par for the course for custom muscle cars, tbh.
Didn’t catch the weirdness in the fenders/hood/windshield until I scrolled to the sketch, thought it was a sticker package and a weird grille treatment. Now I can’t unsee it. Still really didn’t think it looked *that* bad until the rear 3/4 shot, then the damn c pillar was pointed out and I hate it. An amazing amount of effort and cash for a really awkward result.
“It is so bulky and fat that Thanos would have to snap twice.”
As always, Adrian delivers the goods with his prose. The front 3/4 view I could almost give this thing a pass, but the side view and especially the rear end are a let down. An AAR Cuda has been on my dream car list since I was a kid, so perhaps I am picky, but I also can’t keep myself from agreeing with everything Adrian says here, even if I didn’t know I agreed until I read it.
Love an AAR ‘Cuda, but I would just buy/build a clone.
If I had the means, I would probably do the same.
Yeah they ‘Cuda done a much better job in design.
You are doing the Lord’s Work.