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



  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,150
    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; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '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 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: 17,150
    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; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '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.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    What I was implying as I'm sure was the person whose posting I responded to was that the Monte Carlo and the Impala were seen as "failures" or "failed" efforts for those car enthusiasts that wanted the nastalgia of those cars brought forth there's no mis-statement there. If Chevy canned the Corvette, and five years from now made it into a hatchback that happened to sell reasonably would you call that a success?....success, much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Another thing, you compared the Impala's sales to the Charger and 300...this version Impala's been in production for how many years now?..and the 300 and Charger have been on sale for what, a year? Let's not argue which are the better cars, simply because a car sells more doesn't make it "better", that simply means it was either flat out cheaper or priced more reasonably. If simple sales were the sole indication of a car being better, the Toyota Camry and the Ford Explorer would be the two greatest cars ever invented.
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    I agree with you gearhead4, but I can clearly see brysok6's point too.

    I wish DCX hadn't done such a carbon copy clone to the '70 Challenger. I would have appreciated some forward styling to go along with a design that paid it's respect to the original. Remember the concept Charger of 5 years ago ?, that's what I'm talking about, it was undeniably a Charger, yet it was fully modern in every way, it took Dodge forward, not backwards. Where is that innovative design on the Challenger ?

    I agree with this guy brysok, fast forward to '09, and the sheet metal styling on Challenger will be 39 years old. For some, that's 100% what they will want, for others, it's not. Whatever you like, I'm sure there are enough mature Mopar fans out there to keep Challenger alive for at least 4 years, just like the original. Score one for Dodge.

    On the other hand, a lot of us think GM leapt ahead in the design of the Camaro Concept. It's undeniably a Camaro, but it's not a carbon copy of a '69 Camaro, and we wouldn't want it to be either. The Camaro has forward styling themes that will still be fresh when this car debuts in 3 years. It sets a new direction for Chevy that hopefully will find it's way into other cars too,
    such as the Impala, Monte Carlo and Malibu.

    The Camaro Concept breaks new ground for GM and for the pony car market, if GM does this right and builds it without screwing it up !

    I can't call this Camaro Concept car "retro" in the same vein as a Mini Cooper, New Beetle, Ram pick-up, or the Challenger. For me, it simply does not fit into that mold. The Camaro already has 35 years of muscle car history under it's belt, so it doesn't need a pure retro design to succeed.

    I agree with you, it's a no brainer that both cars will be fully modern underneath and on the inside, and they will both help to create a revival of a modern day muscle car era.

    But for me the Camaro Concept is a quantum leap forward in pony car design, better than both the icon's Mustang and Challenger. The Camaro Concept is positioned to compete better in the year 2009 than the Challenger is. And we all know the Mustang will be freshened by then too !

    If the Challenger were on the street right now, today, it's a grand slam home run. Three more years from now without any advances to the design, it's a single, double at best.
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    The Impala is an all new car for '06, so it's been in production for roughly 6-7 months. I was referring to January 2006 sales as recorded by Ward's Auto World.

    I can agree that an enthusiast would be disappointed that these cars do not have a rear drive platform, but I'd hardly refer to them as a failed effort.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    The car I was reffering to and the car you're talking about are two different cars, I happen to like the new Impala. It isn't the past Impala but with it's new design its respectable. The version before it was garbage and that was the version I was reffering to. I think the new Impala is nice for what it is and meant for, but I would never own one.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    This whole argument is getting old..."Camaro vs. Challenger...which is better?" This can all be summed up in four words "to each his own." Neither is better or worse, they either simply appeal to you or they don't. I love how people are sitting here arguing so heavily about which is better or worse as if we've sat in them and have driven them. THEY'RE CONCEPTS. They aren't even finalized much less out yet. This whole argument on which is "better" is really just a tale of "beauty in the eye of the beholder"...neither is "better."
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    "Three more years from now without any advances to the design, it's a single, double at best."

    We can't just throw comments like this as if they're fact...or as if you personally know something that the rest of us don't. Unless your magic 8-ball told you something, you're comment is all just speculation. You are completely untitled to your opinion and I appreciate hearing it but the Challenger isn't a failure because you don't like it, or because it's retro. I can't remember a car design that appealed to absolutely everyone. There will always be critics, it will do fine.
  • The car is perfict. Build it and they will come. :) :) :)
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    I am merely stating my opinion on the car, I'm entitled to it, and I stand by it. And I never said the Challenger was a failure, those are your words, not mine. It's always good to have two opposing views, that's what makes life interesting. If we all liked the same thing, the world would be an awfully boring place to live in.
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    That's what these forums are all about talking and debating cars. I really don't read into anybody's post which car is actually better or worse, rather, I read and comprehend posts about what people like or don't like about each car. It's interesting to hear what others think. And it's fun to talk and debate with others who really like cars. If that's not what you're looking for, sorry, there's always Home & Garden as an alternative.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    For the most part I have to agree. To me at least, there are two flies in the ointment so to speak. For starters, the instrument cluster that they chose to emulate for the new car was the one from the base 1970, not the optional cluster (which I had in my car) which was geared much more toward racing, even to the point of having the tach oriented in such a way as to have the needle go vertical at exactly red-line. My second (and also very minor) gripe is that stupid pistol grip shifter, I hated it then, and I fear that I'm going to hate it in the new car as well. When I got my 1970 (in 1977), the first thing I did (even before I pulled the heads for a valve grind due to a heavily burned #5 exhaust valve) was to buy a Hurst Super Shifter and throw that OEM shifter in the trash.

    Then there is the rest of the car, which as you said, is perfect. ;-)

    Best Regards,
Sign In or Register to comment.