Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Dodge Challenger 2008 and Later

1235717

Comments

  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    actually no...the Charger SRT 8 in fact does weigh 4160(these figures are taken right from their respected press coverage releases)....a mere 7lbs off of the projected weight of the Challenger. I also couldn't disagree with you more when you say that the 300C is an "awkward car". I personally own an 300C SRT 8 and that comment couldn't be more untrue. Own one or at least try driving one before making the comment. The car competes and outperforms basically every car in its performance "league", while still costing thousands less then all of them. The point of choosing one car over another isn't always about cost, it's about prefrence. I'm sure someone whose in the market to buy a Challenger isn't really having an inner debate between the "all american challenger" and a "I just got out of an office meeting" BMW 3 series...that being said, just because two cars are comparible in price doesn't mean they are shopped in the same class. I can get an Neon SRT4 for less than I can get a Nissan Altima....would you compare them? No, they are completely different cars, so although some may have the money at 35k or so to buy a BMW or a Mercedez Benz, but how many people who realistically want to own a Challenger are also in the market for a fine European automobile?
  • It's stuck in 1970 ! There's no doubt the Challenger is a great idea, but how about a little less "retro" in the styling department. The Chevrolet Camaro is a much nicer looking concept, undeniably a Chevy, but it looks modern from every angle while paying homage to the past. So, sorry Mopar fans, Chevy one-up'd Dodge and the Challenger with the Camaro concept. But what maybe the best news of all ?, is hopefully we'll see these two American Icons side-by-side on the street in late '08. Hurry up GM & DCX, the Mustang is waiting.....
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    I personally don't agree with you. I'm a fan of the Camaro's of old as well as the new concept, same with the Challenger. There's no point in making your comment "Chevy one-up'd Dodge and the Challenger with the Camaro concept"....because all that is is your opinion. There's no way to formulate or test that theory so the only weight it holds is with people that agree with you,...not the people that don't. You're entitled to you're opinion, and I like the Camaro, but I happen to feel that the Challenger is a far better looking concept...for those people who ever "what if'ed my car from the 70's could be made today?"....or for those who loved their Challenger in the 70's and wanted it here and now....this is the better car, because that's exactly what they want.
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    I did not say the 300C is an awkward looking car. I said the CHARGER is an awkward looking car. As for weight, both seem like they need a diet. Even the Mustang is getting fatter. Cars should be getting lighter, not heavier.

    The Challenger looks pretty good. That said, not sure what to think of replica cars. Perhaps something new would be better. No, doesn't mean the look of the old Challenger is not perfect, why must they go backwards to find something that looks interesting. In 1970 people were not looking for a 1935 model.
    Something which looks as good as the old, with styling hints from the past would be cool. And it should come in under 3200#s

    Loren
  • Sorry M382, I didn't mean for you to get your shorts all up in a knot, you must be a lawyer ! Take a pill and relax. I thought expressing one's opinion was as American as apple pie ? And in my humble opinion, Chevy's Camaro concept IS the car to build. I love Challengers, and I have always wanted one, but I don't want one in 2009 that looks like it was designed and built in 1970 ! I think DCX can do better than that. And with the Camaro concept, I think (here I go again !) Chevy has stepped to the forefront in design. This has been unfamiliar territory for GM for a long time, but this Camaro concept leaves no doubt there is still life left at GM. Anyway, I can't wait to see these two out on the street. I'll take the Camaro hands down, you can have the Mopar Gramp's.....
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    no, I'm not a lawyer at all...I just know that opinion has no place in stating which car is better or worse. Simply state YOU like the car more, nothing more....instead of imploring as fact that Chevy did something astounding by "one-upping" Dodge...it's a matter of opinion and that all it is. Opinion holds no weight in a statistical comparison, if you want to talk numbers (hypotheticaly speaking) like 0-60, 1/4 mile, HP and whatnot thats a different story. I also think you miss the point where you argue that Dodge's downfall/mistake was that they made the Challenger looking as if it came out of the 70's...not to rain on your parade but that's what they were going for...so like it or not, the fact that you so elequently pointed that out...means they hit the nail on the head.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    I think DCX can do better than that. And with the Camaro concept, I think (here I go again !) Chevy has stepped to the forefront in design

    I feel a little different, really the exact opposite. I think Dodge has nailed it and the Camaro looks a over-done, like a cake from the Three Stooges, that too big and needs to be deflated look. It just looks bloated to me, with exaggerated lines, while the Charger just seems "right". It has that soul, captures what it means to so many whereas the Camaro just looks rushed, like an "Oh shoot!!! The GTO's tanking, Mustangs are selling like hotcakes, Chrysler revived the Charger and a Challenger is coming. We better get something out there quick!". Though the Camaro was supposedly being worked on before the Challenger concept, it just seems rushed. But like you, just my opinion. Hate to say it but the Challenger going to have me defect to DCX :surprise:

    But am in agreement with you, I would be very happy if both hit the streets. All the same to you I'm joining Gramps. ;)
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    My appologies, I agree with you that the Charger is somewhat awkward looking, I love the SRT 8 version but everything else to me, in my own opinion falls short. I happen to love the Challenger because of it's strong ties to its ancestry, the Charger deviated more from that. Yes cars "should" be getting lighter....but also less expensive, more gas effecient etc. You're right, the cars are a little on the heavy side, but their respective weights do not hinder their performance at all. The weight of todays cars is attributed to reinforced chassis', more advanced drive systems, transmissions etc. These cars arent unjusifiably heavy, there is a rhyme and reason to what they've done. With that said, yea cars would be better lighter, as an advantage to handling/performance, but remember the Charger and 300C aren't only weekend racers, they are family cars that can also race, so that weight is for the added comfort and luxury.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "...not to rain on your parade but that's what they were going for..."

    And what the market demanded by the way. They've already dusted off and built one nameplate (the Charger) that looks nothing like its predecessor, and the hue & cry that it caused got the message through to DC loud and clear, "Dust off another nameplate and make it look markedly different from its predecessor at your peril."

    Given that I have always been much more of a Challenger fan than a Charger fan, I'm very glad it was the Charger they screwed up instead of the Challenger. ;-)

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    Ha, well thanks for the banking. Not once did I ever state that I dislike the Camaro. I'm simply stating that I...ME...think that the Challenger looks far better. If Dodge wanted the Challenger to be a "modern marvel" then they would have headed in that direction. It was there intent to build this car as almost an "homage, or tribute" to the past Challenger of 1970. So for anyone to say "hey that car looks like it was straight out of 1970...Dodge thanks you...because you just pointed out what they wanted to hear. As in any sales/marketing field publicity is publicity , good comment bad comment...it gets the people talking, because just as many people that dislike a product, will like the product. Anytime someone can guess your exact direction with design....you've done a good job, and that's what Dodge has done. I'm glad you see where I'm coming from Jae...I guess being 23 makes me "gramps"...well then...gramps out.
  • "I love the SRT 8 version but everything else to me, in my own opinion falls short." :confuse:

    I thought we weren't supposed to state our opinions Colonel Klink ? :mad:

    Sorry, but Chevy DID one-up Dodge with the new Camaro Concept. Nuf said..... :D
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    ...I'm not trying to state one car is "better" than another or that one company "one-upped" another because of my own opinion. You can talk your opinion all you want for all I care, but when you say one car did better or one company and all you have as backing is your opinion....get some more to talk about. In any event I'm dont playing with you...get a dog.

    have fun with your Camaro
  • The best part is, that hopefully (if there is a God) both of these car's will hit the street sooner than 2009 ! In my opinion (sorry, again !) the Camaro & Challenger can't arrive soon enough. :D

    I luv cars, and I was way too young for the original muscle car rush, so I missed it. And I certainly can't afford a Barrett-Jackson price for one either. :sick:

    My enthusiasm for the Camaro just can't be contained, Sorry !!! :)
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    If you're such a fan of the "muscle car rush" then you'd know that the Challenger actually looks like a car from the era that you love yet missed. The Camaro albeit a good looking car, isn't a car that came from the "rush" that you missed.
  • Are you sitting down ? Because I do agree with you that the Challenger is a good looking car. However, you're wrong when you say the Camaro Concept isn't a car that came from the "rush".

    The Camaro Concept absolutely gets it's roots from the original '60's vintage cars, rear drive, V-8, and lot's of horsepower ! Retro isn't a bad thing, but I appreciate some forward innovation in that styling too, and that's where the Camaro scores big for me.

    When I fast forward to '09, I'm much more enthused at the thought of the Camaro Concept than I am of the Challenger, which in '09 will look just like a 39 year old car.

    I don't want Chevy to carbon copy a '69 Camaro, and I'm let down that the best Dodge could do was dust off the dies from 1970. I think, no I know, that DCX can do better than that.

    And boy, can these cars ever generate debate, huh Gramp's ?

    I'll c'ya on Woodward in 3 years, O.K. ? Until then, I'll keep up the fight for the Camaro and you keep 'on fighting for the Challenger. At least we ain't talking about Toyota's and Honda's..........appliance's on wheels !
  • I have waited a life time to bring back the feeling of owning a Challeger. If you've ever owned an original...you know how I feel. My first love!... 1971 Challenger hemi big block 3spd stick blue, blk interior, blk top..a real gem.
    Sold car for one semester of college tuition. What a big mistake...even though I finished my master degree.
    Whom would I talk to in order to be one of the lucky to drive the first dealers demo car in Baltimore MD.
    I'm first on list to purchase... one hope is that the car would get more rear leg room. The current concept car shows with very cramped leg room. Would hope for more space in the rear seating area.
    With joy in my heart .....can't wait!
    ChallengerGal
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Not a problem. IF you're gramps I must be ancient as I'm a few ticks over 23.

    And want to correct a mistake I put in my post. I meant to state "Challenger" instead of "Charger":
    while the Charger just seems "right". , should have been "...Challenger just seems right...it's got soul..."

    Sorry for the confusion! :confuse:
  • One word sums this concept up... UGLY! What is the point of this thing?? Even Dodge admitted the Challenger DIDN'T sell all that well back in the 70's, so what really is the point? This is obviously an attempt to pull in the geezer's that had an "original" hemi way back when. Come on DCX your making great looking cars (Magnum, 300C) that people want, don't fall for the retro geezer nonsense! Do you really think young guys are gonna do anything but laugh at this joke of a car? Pull the plug now! :mad:
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,520
    you obviously haven't read the board and realized there are alot of young folks (myself included) here who think it looks great and want one.

    if you don't think the magnum and 300c have a bit of retro in them, you have an odd way of analyzing style.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • Other than the egg crate grille, badging and Hemi power, the 300 is a copy of a Bentley. It's got no other 300 design heritage cue's in the entire package. That's O.K., it's a great ride. Good job by DCX.

    The Magnum is supposed to be retro what ? Dodge Monaco wagon ?? Because it sure has nothing to do with the Dodge Magnum of the late 70's or early '80's. It's just a station wagon w/ a Hemi available under the hood.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,520
    Retro doesn't have to be a copy of something with the same name. It just means it has styling cues from the past. Both vehicles have styling cues from 40s and 50s hot rods, for instance (slab sides, high beltline, narrow windows).

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    Yo cannot even compare the 70's to today. With the ammount of money spent today simply to purchase cars vs. that era. Cars are a much hotter commodity nowadays while playing more apart of people's lives. If anything carbuying trends have done nothing but go up to the point where nowadays a lot of people view buying a nice car as priority. Back then that wasn't the case, the Challenger wasn't considered a "cheap" car back then, so a comparison between what sold then and what can sell now is a pretty poor one. Salaries and wages have gone up tenfold since then and people nowadays can actually afford such things as gas to fill these cars. Not too mention the Challenger was pulled because of emissions and fuel restrictions that came in the early 80's. You're also dead wrong when you say this car wouldn't appeal to anyone "young", unless your defenition of young is anyone under 12 that can't drive anyway. I'm 23 and I'm in love with the design, and if you look around....there's a lot more people like me that are in love with it. So if you don't like the car...fine, don't get one...but because it doesn't appeal to you doesn't mean its a "joke"....if it has the performance of the 300C SRT8 which it should because it will be getting the SRT 6.1 Liter Hemi (which I can attest is awesome)...then not many people will be laughing. And if you're going to give Dodge credit and credence for their originality don't use the 300C for example...like someone else stated it's a Bentley with a Chrysler grill. Which doesn't make it bad, I don't hear anyone that owns one complaining myself included. They went with a succesfull product and made improvments and made their own, so kudos for that...but originality for that particular model?? You can find a better example. I still find it funny that you refer to this car thats projected to run low 4's 0-60 and have in access of 450HP a "joke"...what exactly do you drive??
  • The Magnum is supposed to be retro what ? Dodge Monaco wagon ?? Because it sure has nothing to do with the Dodge Magnum of the late 70's or early '80's.

    I don't recall the Magnum being called "retro" I was under the impression that "retro" title went to the Charger and of course now the Challenger (which if it's priced over 35,000 grand will only sell in very limited numbers and wil not last).

    It's just a station wagon w/ a Hemi available under the hood.

    And just what's wrong with that?
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,520
    if you look at the message he was replying to, you will see that, yes, I did say the Magnum has retro cues.

    '13 Stang GT; '15 Fit; '98 Volvo S70; '14 Town&Country

  • I have a real love/hate relationship with new American cars. Probably has something to do with my loathing toward the current administration in D.C. Because we seem to be reverting back to the '50s in this country. Yes, these retro-cars are more like the 70s, and I actually like them. But as one of the early responders here pointed out, these cars are big and noisy and heavy and gas-guzzling, so while nearly all of our foreign-policy decisions seem to revolve around oil (Iraq, Venezuela, Iran), we continue to build these large and arrogant and oh-so-very-American rides that have a big f-U attitude to them.

    That said, I do think many of them are cool. I like the Challenger, although I think it's too much like the Lambo Miura concept and the new Mustang in that it's nearly identical (looking) to the original, rather than a modern take. Yes, the engines are doubtlessly more efficient and the handling's much better, but it would be nice if they weren't simply so retro and a little more original. They're a bit too SAFE in their styling. Same with the Mini and the new Beetle, all of which I like very much, but they're pretty conservative. No risks, like Hollywood, which continues to simply do remakes of old TV shows (Dukes of Hazzard, Miami Vice, and they're even contemplating Mr. Ed).

    Of course they're all better than the Malibu, which is a disgrace to its name.

    And to completely defeat my entire argument, I LOVE the Magnum. Big and obnoxious the way it should be, although it's a V8 that at least TRIES to be responsible by cutting back to 4 cylinders when it needs to. Also, the Magnum is a station wagon, which in my book is 1,000 times better than an SUV. It's qualified as a passenger car, so it needs to meet fuel and safety standards that "light-truck" SUVs can ignore. Also, it's lower so it's easier to see around and more maneuverable. Brand-new but with cool styling and MAD performance.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    I agree with your whole point. I love cars in general, american or foreign. I LOVE the Magnum, and its cylinder deactivation technology that it and the 300C possess.

    Two more names you left out of your flop list are the Impala and the Monte Carlo.

    **What's wrong with Miami Vice** :P
  • Nothing's wrong with "Miami Vice." :shades: I'm psyched about it, although it's more a point that Hollywood's remaking movies rather than coming up with new ideas. The Challenger is a modern (but not particularly new) Challenger. Why not just come up with something totally new like, that's right, the Magnum? That's my point.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    No I get you completely. With that said, they just did what their following wanted to do. They set out to create a present day 70's muscle car and did. I'll never say it's original but it's nonetheless. Point is, any company will go in whatever direction sales are in. Hollywood for instance has been seeing huge rewards for simply re-creating old comic books into movies i.e X-Men, Spiderman, The Hulk, King Kong....etc. Sometimes the best way to maximize profit is to minimize the possibility of failure...simply create what the people want instead of suprising them with something they might love. This whole topic is a no win situation...if Dodge comes up with a BRAND NEW design...they lose the die hards that simply wanted their 70's car, and if they create the throwback they lose the modern lovers.
  • brysok6,
    I agree that the Camaro concept is nice looking and resenbles the '69 with same fresh touches.
    But I think your missing the point when you say that say that DCx can do better than the Challenger that you can see at the Chicago Auto Show today! The car looks familiar, but the dimensions are all different. And it promises to have modern technology. It doesn't get any better than that!!!
    Somebody at DCX thought the 2006 Charger was the right way to go. I don't think so. The styling cues are not retro. This Dodge looks more like a Mercedes than a Charger. Yeah it has round headlights. Yeah, the rear side glass has a shape familiar to the original 66 and 67 Charger, but that Charger was so homely that the body was completely redesigned for 1968. The 68 through 70 models are the true classic Chargers. The 71 through 74 models were really nice, too. Compared the these beauties, the 06 Charger looks like a brick. So much for "innovative" styling.
    When I get my kids through college, the Challenger will be top on my list, but I won't ignore the Camaro if that goes into production -especially if GM makes it look more like the original '69.
    And a word to GM and Chrysler - I'll pu my money where my mouth is!
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    "Two more names you left out of your flop list are the Impala and the Monte Carlo."

    I'm puzzled at this mis-statement, and I wouldn't call these cars flops, as they are both selling well, especially the Impala, it's consistently outselling the Charger and 300 combined. And just yesterday, Consumer Reports gave both of these Chevy's a "Recommended Buy", as they have outstanding quality and reliability. GM does produce good product, but they get zero credit for their efforts.

    I do wish these Chevy's were rear drive, especially now that you can get the small block V-8 in both. Maybe the next generation Chevy's will return to rear drive.
This discussion has been closed.