Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

itsnotachargeritsnotacharger Posts: 21
edited March 2014 in Dodge
In Daimler's Spin Zone..."The Detroit News"...Chrysler's design chief Trevor Creed is quoted as saying, "...If the Charger had lived, this is how I believe it would have evolved."

Well then, someone should slap Charles Darwin because the depiction that I saw of the new Charger was a vile and grotesque mutation, not an evolutionary improvement upon the appealing lines and aggressive stance that were the Charger's origin.

Instead of Mr. Creed bringing us "The Origin of Species," he has brought us "The Origin of Feces," because that is what his vision of the new Charger looks like.

For the evolutionary process there has to be at least some of the original DNA present at the end of each change. In the case of the new Charger there is absolutely none.

Instead, the common house fly has more in common with the American Bald Eagle than this new imposter vehicle has with the original Chargers. Furthermore, if this designer had been put in charge of the evolution of the dinosaurs, I would have voted for their extinction.

Daimler's design department may have whiz kids, super computers and 3-D modeling, but I believe that they may have gotten better results using an "Etch-A-Sketch," a monkey and a bottle of Jim Beam." At the least it may have gotten them away from their apparent fixations with the body of the Ford Maverick.

Now in Singapore a person can be caned for spray-painting graffiti on automobiles. Tell me, what is the penalty for using a "Bait & Switch" routine: First, showcasing the exciting '99 Charger concept car, and then secondly, spreading graffiti across the muscle car heritage of the Chrysler Corporation and upon its loyal customers?

In closing, I apologize to Mr. Creed if these comments appear too harsh, but on this day it is too difficult to restrain the tremendous disappointment that this former Daimler-Chrysler customer now feels.

Mark Ebert


  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    So... what would you prefer a new Charger to be like?
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    160 hp, handles like a tugboat, drums brakes all around, gets 8 miles to the gallon? They made those in 1973....I'll take the new ones, thank you.

    Bias ply tires and hydraulic shocks, along with underpowered engines, no longer have a place in automotive society.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    considering what the Charger evolved into in the 70's, I don't think the new one is all that bad. Although the pics I've seen in Motortrend make it look like a heavy-handed 300C with styling cues of a South American Dart grafted on.

    Chrysler really watered down the Charger nameplate after 1970. For 1971, the name was applied to ALL its intermediate coupes, leaving the Coronet as a sedan/wagon only model. Now there were some pretty potent Chargers in the 70's, with 400's and 440's, and the HO 340's and 360's. And if you did the right mods and had a 3:23 rear, you could get a 318 to do the quarter mile in about 15 seconds. Chances are, though, most of 'em just had the 150 hp 318-2bbl. Some years, a slant six was actually standard, putting out all of 105-110 hp!

    The most popular Charger model by '73-74 was the SE model. SE was "Special Edition", which back then was essentially code for "Personal Luxury", i.e., upscale in a pimpy, landau-roofed, louvered-rear-quarters, shagged-out 70's sort of way.

    In 1975, the Charger became a clone to the Chrysler Cordoba, called "Charger SE". The "regular" intermediate coupes reclaimed their Coronet title, only to have it yanked away again for '76. That year, they were Chargers again, although the Cordoba-clone SE was still available. Then they switched back for '77, as the regular intermediates were all called Monaco, in a lame attempt to make people thing Dodge had downsized their big cars, and only the Charger SE was still around.

    Now for '78, it looked like a little excitement came back to Dodge with the Magnum. It was an agressive, good looking car that, for the time, did a great job at balancing the line between muscle car and personal luxury coupe in the looks department. It outsold the Charger SE, 55431 to 2800. Looks aside though, it was still more personal luxury coupe than musclecar, and most of them only had 318's or 360-2bbls. However, I think you could stil get a 400 and a 440 in '78, and in '79 they had a high-output 360 option with 195 hp, that probably made them one of the fastest 4000 lb cars around! But you could get that same 360 in a Volare Roadrunner or Aspen R/T, which were smaller and more manageable (although not necessarily much nimbler, and probably LESS durable!)

    For '80, the Magnum was replaced by the Mirada, which again had aggressive looks for a personal luxury coupe, and was probably the closest thing you could get to musclecar style that year, but most of them just had 85 hp slant sixes or 120 hp 318-2bbls. A 360-4bbl was optional but rarely ordered. Good for around 180-185 hp, it could get the beast from 0-60 in just under 10 seconds, which for the time was impressive. It would give the 2005 Chrysler 300 with the 2.7 a serious run for its money! ;-)

    The Mirada bowed out after 1983, and never was really replaced by anything. The Charger name did return, on a sporty looking 2-door version of the Omni/Horizon. It was a true insult to the name, though.

    Anything that would have followed on in the more "traditional" Charger role would have been K-car based by the 80's, so maybe it's best that they quit when they did!

    All things considered, I think Chrysler could do a lot worse with the Charger nameplate. At least they're putting it on a platform that's worthy...probably more worthy than anything since the big-block Chargers of the 70's.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 48,249
    Hahaha...I was gonna say...looking at what they did to the Charger in the 80s...DCX literally cannot do worse. I think the new guys are doing a decent job with Chrysler so far. They'll make something that's OK.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    This is the automobile business. It's one of the most cut-throat businesses in the world. No prisoners, no mercy. You just have to expect this sort of thing, as the pressure increases to product new products faster and faster. The Japanese upped the stakes on product development and DC and other competitors to the Japanese will pull any rabbit out of any hat they can find.

    If there's a market for a Corvette SUV, they will build it. Porsche did, and it paid off, too.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    The collective "we" are apparently fascinated with the retro styling cues. GM continued to evolve the Camaro/Firebird into TR7-like wedges, while Ford reversed field, went back to the 60s Mustangs for styling inspiration, and blew the Camaro/Firebird right off the market. The rear door glass and rear fender kick of the 06 Charger is just enough to show "heritage" that will attract sales. Using it as the NASCAR body will also pump interest.

    Smart Shopper and Wagons Message Boards
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,649
    Your analysis is faulty Cram. It's arguable whether the '96-'04 Mustangs were very retro but the new ones which are clearly so but the F-bodies
    are already history.

    2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    they did a subtle restyle to the Mustang. Made it a bit less girly looking, and IMO at least, had a slight retro touch. Not as blatantly retro as the new model, but I saw more original Stang styling cues in the '99-04 than I did in any other Fairmont-based style.

    I never really saw any similarity between a TR7 and a Camaro/Firebird, either. If anything, I thought they were pretty modern looking, at least until they started overdoing the ribs & wings (mainly on the Pontiacs) in the final few years. About the closest similarity I saw to another car was that the '93-97 or so Camaros looked slightly like a Geo Storm, and the later models had a front-end that looked a bit like a Chrysler Concorde.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    Andy, my point was that Ford's 1994 redesign of the Mustang was their first venture into using the old styling points. Mustang sales climbed while C/F sales fell, even though the C/F was the better statistical performer. It was the 94 Mustang that put the C/F down for good - obviously the pony car buyers wanted style over speed.

    Andre, didn't say the C/F looked like a TR7, just that they continued to evolve to that wedge form. The first and second gen C/Fs were actual coupes with trunks - after that, they were hatchbacks with low, angled hoods and high tails.

    Back to the 06 Charger, the rear flanks were clearly styled to reflect the design of the old late 60s-early 70s coupes. After the successes of the Ram (old Power Wagon crossed with modern Kenworth), Prowler, PT Cruiser, and now the Charger, the Chrysler design team has a pretty good handle on the retro look.

    Smart Shopper and Wagons Message Boards
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    that Chrysler tried to put just a hint of '68-70 Charger in the 2nd-gen Intrepid. It's noticeable mainly in the rear window, which is massive, and has just the hint of flying buttress. And the taillights have just a hint of '69-70 (the '68's had a 2-light treatment that the current Acura RSX recalls a bit)
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306 nothing compared to what happened to the Challenger. They turned it into a Mitsubishi!

    I hate the 1975 Charger for more personal reasons. I had a real (more profanity than 3 Martin Scorcese movies with Joe Pesci) teacher who bought a new 1975 Charger. This guy's looks and attitude were all that I hated about the '70s. I wish I could teleport myself back in time to key this jerk's ride!
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I just hope we'll get a 2-door version.

    I know I'm out of step with the buying public, but I like coupes, if only for the air of impracticality around them...there's just something about a 2-door that says "no grocery-getting, no soccer practice...just performance." Even if it doesn't quite deliver (e.g. the 1980s Chargers), it has the look at least.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    even if it doesn't have the performance, I still think it should have the style. I've always preferred coupes myself, mainly because the coupes I've owned were always sleeker than their sedan counterparts. But nowadays most cars are so aerodynamic, that going to a 2-door design might not really do much. For example, while an early 80's Charger looked a lot sportier than an Omni, and a Dodge Mirada made a Diplomat look like the brick that it was, I don't think a 2-door Intrepid would have been much of an improvement.

    With the Charger going for a blockier look though, a coupe version might be nicer.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    ...the original Charger was based on the 1967 Coronet - a rather blocky car itself.
  • I have a potential solution to problem some people have with using the storied Charger name on a new vehicle. My solution - don't use it. Instead, Chrysler should resurrect the Challenger name. Here's why:

    1. As revealed in the previous few posts people get very (overly?) emotional about the Charger name. There is a perception that a true Charger must look like a 1969 Charger and sport a big cube hemi or 440 six pack.

    2. The Challenger, to my eyes, was a much better looking car. It had sporty, clean lines on the outside and a purposeful, business-like interior.

    3. The vehicle that last used the Charger name left a very bad taste in the buying public's mouth. At least the Mitsubishi-based Challenger was a decent car.

    Just a thought.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I would personally love that, as I always liked the Challengers better myself.

    "Vanishing Point" alone makes it a cool idea in my book...
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    but in this case, I think the Charger nameplate actually fits the bill a bit better here. The Challenger was actually a purpose built "pony-car" contender, along the lines of the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Cougar, and Javelin. Only difference is, for its time, it was based on the intermediate platform, whereas those others were based on cars that were compact at the time.

    The Charger in its original form was more a cross of a musclecar and a personal luxury coupe, and as a result had just as much functionality as its more mundane Coronet/Satellite counterparts. IMO at least, a musclecar is a high-performance car that can still double as a family car (because most of them were just high performance versions of existing compact, intermediate, or full-sized platforms), whereas a "pony-car" (a term coined by the Ford Mustang) is more purpose-built, stressing style and performance over utility. So, for example, a Camaro would give up a lot of utility over a Chevy II/Nova, but a Chevy Nova SS would not.

    IMO, here's what Dodge should do, if they want to keep some semblance of heritage...offer the Magnum as a sedan and wagon (maybe even a blocky coupe), but then offer a Charger variant that would have a much sleeker coupe and maybe even a convertible variant. It still wouldn't be totally historically accurate, because there never was a Charger 'vert, there never was a Magnum or Charger sedan, and originally the Magnum slotted above the Charger for '78. But hey, I think it could work!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    I do like the '70-74 Challenger better than any Charger after 1970. I even like the little Mitsu Challenger/Sapporo, even if it was kind of a slur on that name! But to be fair, there were slant six Challengers, and I'm sure a 2.6 '79 Charger would give one a run for its money!

    My favorite though, is the '68-70 Charger. Yet, as muscular as those are, even some of those were offered with a slant six! It was rare, though. Of the roughly 90,000 Chargers built in 1969, I think only around 5,000 had the slant six. Back in '93, I was actually thinking about looking at one. I had hit a crater in the road with my Dart, and thought I had done irreparable damage to it, so I started looking for another car. One other candidate I was thinking of was a gorgeous '65 Buick Electra hardtop sedan for $2500. In retrospect, I shoulda bought it! I never did get a chance to look at that slant six Charger though, because my mechanic gave me some pointers on what to do to fix my Dart myself, and I did it, for around $75 total.

    I know a '69 Charger slant six wouldn't have been much to brag about (I had a '69 Dart slant six, and that was enough car for that engine!), but it least it would have looked good while it was going slow! ;-)
  • badtoybadtoy Posts: 368
    that was an interesting post...I have to confess I wouldn't have expected it from you.

    I don't think the gentleman who created this topic is looking for a replica of a 73 Charger (which, as any Mopar freak knows, is not really a Charger anyway). Rather, they hope for a modern interpretation of the original concept -- a stunningly beautiful, relatively inexpensive, extremely fast coupe. Something with enough oats to burn the skins, and enough attitude to intimdate the competition, all the while looking for all the world lilke it's wearing a tuxedo.

    The Charger was probably the most elegant expression of the muscle car idiom ever devised (with the Grand Prix of the same era a close second). The Road Runner was the original Belvedere [non-permissible content removed] big-block, and it was truly lovely (I had one, an orange 69; I also had a 68 Grand Prix SJ); but it had nowhere near the cache and presence of the Charger. The Crossfire probably comes closest to what the Charger was, but it's small, and it's certainly not inexpensive. Maybe it's too much to ask, but dreams die hard. I'd suggest acquiring a 68-70 Charger (if you can find one), and upgrading the suspension and brakes. You'll impress everybody, and find it impossible to wipe the grin off your face every time you drive it.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    Charger will live on forever, considering it's a cool car and with the cars like the Daytona and Superbird leading the charge, and an endless supply of Dukes of Hazzard reruns, everyone will always know what the car is.

    As cool as it was, though, either in 440 or Hemi form, it was still an enormous car with bias tires and poor handling, even compared to the other bias ply tired poor handling cars of the time.

    Being a purist is cool - I'm a purist about several things automotive. Trashing DaimlerChrysler for resurrecting the Charger name in a better performing, more efficient, and all around greater vehicle is beyond being a purist...

    Times have changed - it's good to remember and reminisce - it's also good to realize that more power, faster acceleration, and better handling, combined with better fuel economy and cleaner emissions...isn't a bad thing.

    Besides, the Dukes of Hazzard reruns will be around FOREVER.....
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    If Dodge wants to reach into the past for a nameplate, and purists howl at the thought of a nameplate associated with sporty coupes being stuck on a 21st century sedan, then how about...Polara?



    Don't be too hard on the 1971-74 Dodge Chargers. They may be overshadowed by their fire-breathing forebears, but taken in the context of their time, they weren't bad vehicles.

    Our neighbor had a 1973 Charger SE (medium blue metallic with a white vinyl top), and it was a handsome car for the time.

    At least Dodge didn't ruin the Charger for 1973-74. Plymouth, on the other hand, facelifted the Satellite Sebring for 1973, and completely ruined the car by adding an upright front with an awkward grille.

    Speaking of Plymouth, maybe Dodge can raid the nameplate bin of its deceased sibling.

    Dodge could use Fury, Satellite or Belvedere.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    is that for the most part, their past names just don't have that much equity. I could see Charger, Challenger, and Magnum having some name equity, but for the most part, names like "Coronet", "Polara", "Monaco", etc pale in comparison to "Malibu", "Impala", "Monte Carlo", "Thunderbird", etc.

    And I'm sure it's a safe bet that there will never be another Dodge named "Aspen"! The Dart was probably the most famous Dodge of all, but that's a name I think should be retired forever, out of respect. Unless Mopar had a danged good small car to put it on. And, knowing the domestics, I don't think they can put out a small car that good! Plus, the name "Dart" just sounds too 60's or 70's IMO. I dunno if it would go well on a modern car.

    Now "Demon" was a cool name. But good luck getting people in the Bible belt to buy one. They're not gonna want to drive it to church on Sundays!
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Always thought "Fury" was a great Mopar name that deserves to be brought back, esp. "Gran Fury."

    There was a brief, early '90s Dodge Monaco wasn't there? I recall it was a Euro-looking sedan of intermediate proportions...
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    was around and had a Renault twin....the car had a 75% first year depreciation hit...
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    the Monaco was brought back for a few years, as a clone to the Eagle Premier. It was one of those cars that, had the reliability been there, it would've been a great car. Unfortunately, it was kind of an odd combination of Renault and Chrysler, and I have a feeling they took the least reliable bits of each one!

    I dunno if this is true or not, but I've heard that the Premier/Monaco actually served as the basis for the original Intrepid. I know they had a longitudinal engine layout, just like the Intrepid.

    "Fury" is probably one of the few time-honored names that never did get dragged through the muck. The original Fury was V-8 and RWD, as was the final 1989 model. Okay, so by 1989 it was down to 140 hp for civvy models and 175 for police interceptors, but still, at least there was never a K-car Fury!
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    ... the 1958 Plymouth is probably the world's most famous Fury thanks to Stephen King and John Carpenter. In reality, Christine was a Belvedere because real 1958 Furies were cream & gold with gold anodized trim.

    I always wished Chrysler had built an LH version of the Plymouth Fury. I bet it would've been beautiful. If DCX had any guts, it would bring back Plymouth with a Fury.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    would have been nice looking, but I don't think it would have been enough to save the division. I imagine it would've looked about like a Dodge Intrepid, but maybe with an eggcrate grille similar to the Plymouth Breeze?

    IMO, current Chrysler-badged cars like the Sebring, PT Cruiser, and the V-6 versions of the 300 are really about where a Plymouth should be, in terms of price and prestige. Heck, Sebring is even an old Plymouth name!

    What I think they should do is offer the 300 as a V-8 only model. Just either de-tune it or reduce its displacement for the cheaper models. Then for a Plymouth version, offer a base 2.7 Fury, a mid-range 3.5 Gran Fury or Fury VIP, and then a Hemi-only Fury GT model.

    The key would be to differentiate the style between a Chrysler and a Plymouth, and that's something that Mopar has had trouble doing ever since the downsizing era of the late 70's. While, say, a 1977 New Yorker actually shares very little sheetmetal with a 1977 Gran Fury, from 1980 onward (when the Gran Fury was re-introduced) it was all but identical to a Chrysler Newport, except the taillights, which were borrowed from a Dodge St. Regis!

    But then having a Plymouth lineup would cut into Dodge territory as well, since over the years Dodge has moved down into that range.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    ...would look like? I imagine it would look like an evolution of your old Gran Fury police interceptor.
  • wale_bate1wale_bate1 Posts: 1,986
    itsnotacharger and I are seeing this one near eye to eye.

    The 1999 Charger concept, that was strangely enough still on the circuit until this year, is the expression (or close to it) of what I had hoped to see. Flowing lines of pure muscle.

    This is a cheap 300 reskin or Magnum butt-ectomy. I don't mind them doing it, and understand the economics of it perfectly, but don't mess with the Charger (or Challenger) name.

    Like grbeck, Polara popped into my head when I first saw the pics. Now that I'm thinking about it, Fury seems like a near perfect fit.
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    ...would probably have the potential to supplant the Crown Vic as the police car of choice.

    Smart Shopper and Wagons Message Boards
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    the only reason the Crown Vic is even the police car of choice is because Mopar and Chevy pretty much dropped out of that market. Impalas are pretty popular though, at the local and county level. I think state troopers still prefer something beefy like a Crown Vic, though.
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I see alot more Impala police cars these days (esp. as police "service" vehicles, like ticket writers and motorist assist cars).

    Though, big city police depts. still prefer the iron rwd toughness of the Crown Vics for the same reason cabbies do...

    Be cool to see a Mopar patrol car again...of course, I also hope highway patrols adopt the new Mustang as a pursuit car, just like in the '80s.
  • lemkolemko Philadelphia, PAPosts: 15,306
    They do have Dodge Intrepids as patrol cars in some municipalities. The city of Philadelphia seems to be slowly shifting to Impalas.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Some of these names kinda clunk in the year 2004 don't you think?
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    Polara does have a 1960s "space age" ring to it, but Fury would still work, although we would have to get used to a Dodge Fury. The general public, however, probably wouldn't mind.

    As for the Eagle Premier/Dodge Monaco - it was originally designed when Renault still owned AMC. Chrysler escapes the blame for that one. To me, it was the epitome of bland, especially when parked beside a Ford Taurus or Mercury Sable of that time.
  • badtoybadtoy Posts: 368
    There is no arguing the fact that cars of the 68-70 vintage were poor handlers compared to almost any car of today -- even lowly Civics and Corollas. However, that is not a valid argument in my opinion, any more than speculating about who would have won WWI if they'd had F15s. It's simply not germane.

    As for Charger's handling relative to other cars of the time, I speak from experience in assuring you that they were every bit the equal of my Road Runner, Grand Prix and Firebird, the limiting factor in all three being those gawdawful bias plies (not the fault of the car companies, by the way, and one that is easily remedied today). And, as I've mentioned previously, it is a simple matter to upgrade any of these cars with modern suspension components, brakes and tires. I'd take any one of them in a heartbeat -- they are really cool cars, and a lot of fun to drive.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    tested a 1969 Charger once. With a 375 hp (IIRC) 440, a Torqueflite 727 tranny, and a fairly tame 3.23:1 rear end. They hated it, but c'mon, it's Consumer Reports! They probably wet themselves when the got it to do 0-60 in 7 seconds!

    They also tore up the bias ply tires in the time that they had the car testing it, so that shows you they must've been having some fun with it, pushing it to the limit. They certainly weren't driving this Charger the way they'd drive a VW Bug or a 6-cyl Falcon or Valiant!

    And Badtoy's right...just making the switch from bias ply tires made a world of difference. I did just that with a '69 Dart GT, and put over 85,000 miles on my '68 Dart 270, which had 205/70/R-14's up front, and in back I'd switch between 225/70/R14's and 205/70/R14's. It handled differently from a modern car, and you had to pay attention to it, but in just about any "real world" driving you could throw at it, it didn't suffer because of being an old car. And when I delivered pizzas, let's just say that they didn't get to their destination any slower in my Dart than they did in the Civics, Mustangs, Tercels, Corollas, Skylarks, and other tiny cars the other drivers were using!

    I'm sure a Charger would behave similarly. In fact, it might actually handle more stably than a Dart because of the wider track. Darts had a really skinny track in back, something like 55.9", IIRC.

    Chrysler was usually praised for the well balanced handling and ride that the torsion bar suspensions provided. That is, at least, until they tried mounting them transversely on the '76 compacts, and the ride got mushy, and they started to crack, pull away from the sub-frame, etc!
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    You better bet!!

    Hotchkis Suspension, a while back, teamed up with Car Craft or Popular Hot Rodding (I can't remember) and worked over a '69 Chevelle and a '69 Charger with their springs, shocks, sway bars, and polyurethane bushings, plus 17" wheels and tires.

    With just those simple mods, and less than $2,000 per car, both cars posted over .85 on the skidpad and 65+ mph slalom times...

    The, you just do the brakes, and you've got a new Z-28 in a cool, classic wrapper.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    yeah but wear a boxer's mouthpiece to save your teeth over bumps.
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Actually the Eagle Premier was the last gasp of the American Motors/Renault cooperation before Chrysler bought AMC. If I recall AMC sunk a lot of money into a Canadian plant to build this unreliable beast just before Chrysler bought AMC, and Chrysler kept the model in production for a few years, probably to their regret. It did have nice exterior styling for its time, but that was all.

    Combining AMC and Renault to design and develop a car was a recipe for disaster.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    I disagree - my 1986 Mustang GT had 800 lb front and 450 lb rear springs, 1 3/8" front sway bar, 1 1/8" rear bar, and KYB AGX struts always set on 3 or 4 - it rode nicer than the 2005 WRX STi I was looking at buying....
  • rbentonrbenton Posts: 30
    Chrysler ruined the Monaco name that evil wart of vehicle. I had 92' Monaco, evil car. Total Lemon. The Premier/Monaco on a test drive basis was much better car K-car variant. However these cars in real life experience often have reliability, design and workmanship issues that make pre-1999 Hyundai's and Yugo's look good. I almost lost my shirt financially on that car.
    Andre it's true the Premier served as the design basis (i.e. blueprint) for all cab forward cars. Particularly the LH cars. So to speak AMC/Renault designer inspired Chrysler to adopted the colaboartive team design concept and gave them the answer book to modern chassis design. Otherwise Chrysler would have only been able just keep recycling the K-car. Much like GM has done with the W-Body cars.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaPosts: 64,490
    Well sure it can ride better than a WRX STi because you have the longer wheelbase. But it's just not a sophisticated suspension no matter what you do to it; however, it can be highly effective for smooth flat tracking situations.

    All in all though, old cars are pretty primitive compared to modern ones, and they love to pogo-stick on rutted roads, as you probably know.

    We long for the old days, but we really don't want them as they were, only as we imagine them I think.
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    I don't know if the Monaco based on the Renault Premier can be said to have ruined the name. Most people have probably never heard of this vehicle. It was obscure even when new.

    Before Chrysler purchased AMC from Renault, AMC had planned to build a coupe version of the Premier called the Allure. It died when Chrysler took over AMC. The coupe market was dying by the late 1980s, so it was just as well.

    If I recall correctly, the 300 and Magnum are built at the former AMC plant in Canada.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    The 1979-1993 Mustang has a 100.4" wheelbase, the STi has a 100.0" - .4" isn't much of a difference...
  • carlisimocarlisimo Posts: 1,280
    Those who want a coupe will join the sport compact coupe crowd who are being overrun by the sport compact sedan bunch. For some reason, everyone wants those rear doors nowadays, though I haven't seen a corresponding increase in carpooling.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    as the most common rally class is the 4-door group sedan...also most easily translated into real world vehicles.
  • I'd buy an 05 Chrysler 300C, remove the body and somehow drop a 68-70 RT body on it. The best of both worlds.
         By the way, my first car was a 68 Charger.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,560
    you might be able to actually get the suspension components of to mate up to the undercarriage of the classic Charger. With enough money and perseverance, that is!

    The new Hemi would fit in the engine bay, no trouble at all. Because while it might look pretty impressive compared to most modern engines, it's downright dainty and feminine-looking compared to some of the monsters that used to end up under the hood of a Charger!

    As for the tranny, I'm also guessing that the Benz 5-speed is physically bigger/longer than the old Torqueflite 727, so you might have to modify the tranny hump. At least, I heard you had to do that when putting in the 4-speed automatic overdrive from the trucks, which used to be a somewhat popular thing to do to somewhat modernize these old beasts (and probably plunge their durability too, as those old Torqueflites were one of the most durable parts of the car!)
  • A few years ago Jon Moss did put a Monte Carlo body on a Z28 chassis as an engineering experiment. Went from FWD to RWD, 406 ci, 6speed manual; the car hauled. Chevy toyed with the idea briefly. More of a what if than a why.
This discussion has been closed.