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

13468917

Comments

  • 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 today...so 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,
    Shipo
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    "The version before it was garbage and that was the version I was reffering to."

    That sounds like pure speculation to me..... :) :D :P
  • twaintwain Posts: 185
    but the Challenger isn't a failure because you don't like it, or because it's retro.
    ----------------------------------

    I like the Challenger design. I think it captures the spirit of the old Challenger the same way the Mustang does. My concern is this...will it be too big, too heavy and too expensive? I'd much rather see a 3200lb Challenger with 300hp for 25k than a 3800lb Challenger with 400hp for 35k.
  • m382m382 Posts: 35
    "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."

    Read between the lines of your own words. Do you think a car company strives to produce a car that would be the equivalent of a "single"...or "double" at best? Obviously not. In those terms, any product mereley being compared to a single or double would not be profitable business...what would you call it...a success?? It's not all in what you say, more as how you say it.

    And twain yea I agree with you completely, I'd like to see a smaller car that maybe didn't have to rely on such a large displacement engine. But with that said the SRT8's both Charger an 300C weigh the same and perform amazingly. I hope they do find a way to shave off weight here and there, but I don't think it'd be the end of the world if the Challenger emulated the performance of the SRT8's. I'm just stoked about it either way.
  • viet3viet3 Posts: 8
    I love the Charger styling too. But as a muscle car lover converted to import, why does the Charger or other retro muscle cars have to be so big? Big car needs big engine to pull dead weight, handle not as good and for sure is a gas guzzler. I can see the Charger is just another 4000 pounds iron spinning its wheel.
  • Yes, I see that now. :blush: However, I don't see any retro cues. It doesn't look like any station wagon from the 70's that I know of. Maybe it would have been better to name it an old Dodge wagon name, which I can't think of off hand.
  • why does the Charger or other retro muscle cars have to be so big?

    Well, they were not exactally smallish cars back then either.
  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    Monaco, Polara, Coronet, Aspen.....all were old Dodge wagon names.
  • I'm going overseas for three years. If that Challenger is in the showrooms when I come back, I'm buying one. Unless they come up with a two-door Charger without that ugly front end.
  • Best of luck to you and Godspeed on your safe return. I hope the Challenger of your dreams is here and waiting for you when you get home.

    I don't know if anyone caught the Chicago Auto Show on WGN last night, but the Camaro and Challenger were the stars of the show. They definately generated more buzz than anything else on the floor.

    Seems to me American's could fall in love with American cars all over again if these two machines are any indication of where we're going. ;)
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 17,468
    Well, no, I don't think the Magnum looks like a station wagon from the 70s, either. But, like I said, it takes cues from 40s and 50s hot rods with the high beltline, narrow windows, slab sides, etc. There is nothing wrong with it, in the least, its great looking, but, if you follow the thread, the person I was responding to was calling the Challenger garbage because of its retro cues, while calling the Magnum and 300 completely new, fresh, and modern. Fact is, they are all retro. Its just that the Challenger concept seems a bit more retro than the others.

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

  • bmk32bmk32 Posts: 74
    "Read between the lines of your own words. Do you think a car company strives to produce a car that would be the equivalent of a "single"...or "double" at best? Obviously not. In those terms, any product mereley being compared to a single or double would not be profitable business...what would you call it...a success?? It's not all in what you say, more as how you say it."

    No, I'm merely trying to say that it's too bad Challenger isn't available right now, 'cause if it was I don't think DCX could build enough of 'em. Three more years will give consumers an all new Camaro and a freshened up Mustang to choose from too. Just more in the mix for muscle car crazy American's to choose from, that's all.

    Have a nice day ! :)
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    The same was in person, not sure which one got the most attention though. There was a decent crowd @ the GT500 as well. I really didn't look at the Camaro; I hope some clean-up is done to it before it hits the streets, if it does.

    For me, I'm still leaning towards the Challenger. To me it just has that "look", that "feel". But as many said, the real determinates will be:
    1. Will it really make it to production (from Dodge's past record, most likely it will)
    2. What will / won't make it to production or will be changed and make it horrible in some way
    3. Price / options
    4. Dreaded dealer markup - :cry:

    That Caliber SRT-8 was getting some looks as well, mostly for the hp rating. Not a bad little run about. The rest of the show was a bore to me.
  • jae5jae5 Posts: 1,205
    Know this is off-topic, but do you think the new Impala will become the darling of the rental - company-car fleets like the previous generation?

    Reason I ask is because the company I work for has Impalas as the mainstay fleet car, and Venture/whatever the new van is as people/box hauler throughout the NA locations. Our HQ here just got an '06, so looks as though we'll be rotating those in.
  • badnessbadness Posts: 242
    I don't like the Camaros look it looks real bad,Chevy should learn from Ford,they brought back what people loved too look at and if chevy could just get away from the future and bring back the old style more they would bring back the people.

    FORD:::
    the old new ponies are the best looking Cars on the Road again. Great Job Ford :shades:
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    Well yes and no. Yes, the New Stang looks OK, though one could say too retro as in replica car. It is just new enough to where I would consider one. A nice looking car. It is just that they were doing fine with the previous styling. The interior, IMHO, was better looking and more functional before - using the instruments as an example. And one burning question is where to next? Hopefully not a full replay, or we are into the Pinto years.

    The New Challenger looks good, as does the Camaro. Just lower those doors if possible. The whole cars now-a-days look too bulky. And one note of caution, or is this another note on the same line, beware of the Challenger being too retro, as in replica, plastic car reproduction look.

    One more thought. What would have happened if people in 1970 did opt to buy a 1935 styled car? Now that would have seemed strange. That said, the mid-60's thru earliest 70's cars did stand out as real classics with enduring graceful lines which do stand the test of time.

    Loren
  • badnessbadness Posts: 242
    Yes they did,the cars in that era were the best since P>B and Jelly.good reply.But if I had the money I would buy both cars the old Challenger and Camro,69,SS and the 70 Challenger,for I don't have a money tree in my back yard so if you know were to buy ine let me know.

    Brad
  • Reply to m1miata:
    Here's one for sale (1970 Challenger R/T) -- heck they'll even deliver it for slightly over $200K:
    http://www.bibliauto.com/store/proddetail.php?prod=Challenger70&cat=173

    Also, the recent Barret-Jackson auction had a couple...
    http://www.barrett-jackson.com/auctionresults/common/collector.asp
  • Unlike the hideous midget Charger with the Dakota grill, the prototype Challenger appears to have some sheet metal DNA from the original Challenger. My question is will DCX pull another Bait&Switch routine like they did after parading the sleek, eye-catching, and aerodynamic 1999 Charger prototype to auto shows, only to roll out the stubby Checker Cab Charger.

    If DCX management intends to insult true Mopar enthusiasts by serving an Egg McMuffin again, after showing us a Sirloin Steak, they can keep it.
  • Since I remember Dodge Division came with the best performance cars, it is time to go back to the good times!!!.
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,926
    The teasing new Challenger seems to be more of a retro-Plymouth Barracuda to my eye. I note the filler panel in front of the leading edge of the hood, the way the rear quarter comes up to the hip, the rear taillight, all seem more Barracuda-esc to my eye.

    Regardless, I think its beautiful even if they called it a Meadowbrook!

    Regards,
    Dusty
13468917
This discussion has been closed.