1967 Dodge Dart on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jay Leno drives a 1970 Dodge Charger with 1,650 horsepower

When Jay Leno says a vehicle might have too much horsepower, he's got our attention piqued. That's exactly what he thinks about the 1970 Dodge Charger Tantrum from Wisconsin-based SpeedKore Performance. While it still looks like a classic muscle car, the front end now features a carbon fiber hood and fenders. Underneath the lightweight parts, there's a twin-turbo, 9.0-liter Mercury Marine offshore boat racing engine with an astonishing 1,650 horsepower, or an only slightly less asinine 1,350 hp on pump gas. Jay is very mechanically intrigued by the Charger at the beginning of this video, and puts it on the lift to take a look at the underside. The engine plumbing is a thing of beauty, and the mill packs a massive radiator and intercooler to keep things running cool. Leno's drive in the Tantrum is especially interesting. The beastly engine is difficult to control, and anything above half throttle in most gears can spin the rear tires. The significant turbo lag also makes the power unpredictable. When Jay finally finds a straight piece of road, he puts the hammer down and rockets into the distance. And, of course, you know Jay's not going to end the video without some suitably smoking tires. Related Video:

Barracuda's Dodge branding no biggie, but what about engines?

Rumors about a revival of the Barracuda nameplate have been circulating for years now, though which brand it might fall under has been a bit of a mystery. Initial speculation had the car labeled an SRT product, but that acronym has since returned to its former role as a sub-brand for top-performance Mopars. Thanks to leaks from a recent FCA dealership event, we know the Barracuda is back on the table but will be sold under the Dodge umbrella, a move that has been generating a bit of ire from Pentastar fanatics, as the car was originally part of the defunct Plymouth brand. Given what's known about the new model, however, the badge is the least of my concerns about the new car. Let's start with the re-branding itself. This isn't the first time Chrysler has shuffled models around to different brands. The current-generation Viper spent two years as the flagship model under the SRT banner, only to return to Dodge for 2015 when SRT resumed its former role as a sub-brand. Years ago, the Neon was sold as a Plymouth, a Dodge, and a Chrysler model, depending on where you shopped for one. When Plymouth ceased to exist, the last few years of Prowler production got Chrysler badges instead. Then there's the new Jeep Renegade, a model whose name was born out of a trim level. The Barracuda might not turn out to be a muscle car in the way we currently define them. Further examples of naming liberties taken throughout automotive history could fill a book, but suffice it to say that these days a model's name has very little to do with the vehicle itself or any legacy it might have. The Barracuda name might be a particularly sacred cow with enthusiasts, but to me, a much bigger concern is the fact that the car might not turn out to be a muscle car in the way we currently define them. News from the Fiat Chrysler dealer briefing earlier this week indicates that when the next Charger debuts it will share its platform with the Barracuda, much the way the Charger and Challenger are twinned now. One difference is that the Barracuda is tipped to be offered as a convertible, while the modern Challenger is tintop-only. The Charger and Barracuda will use the rear-drive platform developed for Alfa Romeo's new Giulia, itself designed as a BMW M3 fighter both from a dimensional and dynamic standpoint; the Barracuda is expected to be slightly smaller than the current Challenger.

Brand new cars are being sold with defective Takata airbags

If you just bought a 2016 Audi TT, 2017 Audi R8, 2016–17 Mitsubishi i-MiEV, or 2016 Volkswagen CC, we have some unsettling news for you. A report provided to a US Senate committee that oversees the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and reported on by Automotive News claims these vehicles were sold with defective Takata airbags. And it gets worse. Toyota and FCA are called out in the report for continuing to build vehicles that will need to be recalled down the line for the same issue. That's not all. The report also states that of the airbags that have been replaced already in the Takata recall campaign, 2.1 million will need to eventually be replaced again. They don't have the drying agent that prevents the degradation of the ammonium nitrate, which can lead to explosions that can destroy the airbag housing and propel metal fragments at occupants. So these airbags are out there already. We're not done yet. There's also a stockpile of about 580,000 airbags waiting to be installed in cars coming in to have their defective airbags replaced. These 580k airbags also don't have the drying agent. They'll need to be replaced down the road, too. A new vehicle with a defective Takata airbag should be safe to drive, but that margin of safety decreases with time. If all this has you spinning around in a frustrated, agitated mess, there's a silver lining that is better than it sounds. So take a breath, run your fingers through your hair, and read on. Our best evidence right now demonstrates that defective Takata airbags – those without the drying agent that prevents humidity from degrading the ammonium nitrate propellant – aren't dangerous yet. It takes a long period of time combined with high humidity for them to reach the point where they can rupture their housing and cause serious injury. It's a matter of years, not days. So a new vehicle with a defective Takata airbag should be safe to drive, but that margin of safety decreases with time – and six years seems to be about as early as the degradation happens in the worst possible scenario. All this is small comfort for the millions of people who just realized their brand-new car has a time bomb installed in the wheel or dashboard, or the owners who waited patiently to have their airbags replaced only to discover that the new airbag is probably defective in the same way (although newer and safer!) as the old one.