I'd forgotten how ugly the Superbird really was ...
- Thread starter jos51700
- Start date
-
Chick pics are like bacon and Hemis. They make everything better.
Agreed. But the looks cost them top end speed.
Professor Fate
Push the button, Max...
I kinda prefer the Daytonas.
Neither one was designed for it's looks, just for no holds barred "go fast"- styling be damned.
They probably considered style a bit more with the Superbird, but not to a huge degree.
Daytona looked a bit more utilitarian, and I like that. It also wind tunnelled much better than the 'bird... but it was good enough for Petty, and that meant it was good enough for Plymouth.
Build quality was horrendous on both of them, even for Chrysler- but they were just built for homologation, not to set sales records. That's why they sat on dealer lots for years in some cases before they got sold.
Last edited:
Unconventional
Well-Known Member
A neighbor in the old desert homeland had one of each parked in his front yard. I walked by them every morning on my way to school. One Hemi, one 440 Six Pack 
Cuda Hunter
Well-Known Member
The superbird has more degree in the rake of the wing than the daytona does.
This does tend to make the daytona look a little more blocky.
I have never seen either of these cars on the street in a regular setting.
This does tend to make the daytona look a little more blocky.
I have never seen either of these cars on the street in a regular setting.
I'm not a fan of either but think the daytona looks cleaner and a little tougher.
-
