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!

Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

1356722

Comments

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    but I think there might have been a manual option in the '78-80 timeframe. At least, I know there was a 4-speed option for the Grand Prix...I think it was available for the Monte as well. Throughout the 80's, I think most of them just used lightweight Turbo-Hydramatic 200Cs, or the 4-speed overdrive variant of it. Sometimes the TH350 would show up behind the Buick 231 V-6 (my '82 Cutlass Supreme had one) but I think the Chevy engines got mainly the 200C trannies.

    I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe when I was married. It was actually fairly reliable up to around 90,000 miles. Then all hell broke loose, and about the only thing mechanical that hadn't died by the 115-120K mark was the tranny, and even it was leaking fluid.

    I think the LeBaron was definitely a looker, though, although when they went to exposed headlights for 1993(?), I thought that ruined the looks.

    I thought that style-wise, the Sebring was a bit of a step down, too, although I did like the styling of the '96-00 generation. After the '01 refreshening though, I like it less, and it just comes off feeling cheaper, somehow. I don't know if they actually cheapened the cloud cars for 2001, or the competition just got that much better. Maybe a bit of both?
  • fintailfintail Posts: 46,808
    There were manual 84 Montes sold in the Mexican market, of all places
  • ghuletghulet Posts: 2,628
    An old woman who lived about four blocks from me when I was a kid had a super-strippo (not even a/c), light blue with light blue interior, '78 or '79 Monte with a four (or maybe three, or heck, maybe five, wish I would have checked more closely) speed manual on the floor, not sure what engine, but I'm guessing some sort of six. I can't remember if it had a bench or buckets, but I think bench. It's still the only one like it I've ever seen. Not sure if there's any way to find out how many like it were built.

    Back on topic, in reading through this, I guess I'm not the only one who thinks the title of this topic is more than a little off-base, considering what Chrysler did to the Charger name through the years. Of course, they're hardly unique in that regard. How many bastardizations has the (now dead) T-bird been through?
  • KCRamKCRam Mt. Arlington NJPosts: 3,516
    A story in this week's Automotive News says DC is getting lots of mail from people against using the Charger name on a 4-door body.

    kcram
    Host - Wagons
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    that the same thing happened over a decade ago, when Chevy did the blasphemous act of slapping SS badging on a Caprice, and in the process making one of the baddest big cars around since the switch to net horsepower ratings.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    are pulling more money now than they cost new...a definite hit and a dumb mistake not to continue them.

    I can't see how any Mopar fan, even a purist could ever gripe about a Hemi powered, low-slung "Charger"...especially when DCC has done MUCH worse things to that name...1984 Shelby Charger ring a bell??

    I would think that the new Charger, if produced, would out-perform most versions of the old Charger, perhaps save for a hemi car, and then all you'd have to do is take a high-speed corner for the new one to win that competition.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,029
    The Shelby Charger was a blot on the name of both Shelby and Charger. It's also worth noting that the current Chrysler 300s are the first to come with four doors and are selling just fine, as well as outperforming (in 300C form) the 300-letter cars of yore.

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    about the new Charger, is that some of the artists renderings make me think the end product may look like a rush-job, with just a bunch of haphazard, clunky, quickie styling changes applied to the Chrysler 300. Kind of like a modern take on those Dodge Darts that were badge-engineered into "Magnums", "Chargers", etc for the South American market. A lot of frivolous stuff tacked on, but blatantly obvious that the thing was intended to be a Dart underneath!
  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    I have to imagine, in the name of production economics, it'll be the four door...Not my first choice, but it's not bad-looking either.

    Actually, the 1984 Shelby Charger was the best of a bad lot...try the "regular" Dodge Charger of the 1980s for a real treat. ;-) Friend in highschool had one, and maaannn what a slow car.

    I think with the Caprice in the 1990s, nobody really noticed when they made the SS. Sure, the diehards and the car mags did, but it slipped by the rest of the population. It only became really sought after it was out a while, then esp. when it was canceled.
  • Although I have to admit a bias towards turbo Mopars, I'm gonna have to siound up about the Shelby Chargers. Sure, they were poorly slapped together automobiles, sure they were no 'Charger' as the classic B-bods, but dang those little things could scoot. And with minimal dollars and a few easy mods, they could embarass many a big block, especially around corners.

    Check out www.thedodgegarage.com for some info on these cars.

    I've owned both a 69 Charger 383, and a Turbo Shadow, and I can tell evryone here that the Shadow would flat tear up that Charger. Straight lines, corners, etc....

    And don't even get me started on Mother Mopar's decision to put little bitty drum brakes on those big-block cars. They were SCARY in emergency situations.

    Turboshadow
  • Chevy would have been more than happy to keep building the Caprice/Impala SS, but it wouldn't meet '97 crash standards without substantial redesign.

    Turboshadow
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    the side impact angle, but looking back on it, it makes perfect sense now. Those '91-96 B-bodies were massive inside, actually as wide, if not wider in some cases, than those old, outsized '71-76 mastodons. However, to get that width, they made the body of the car extend out well beyond the frame rails, and even the doors were bowed out to give more interior room. So basically, a great deal of that car extended out beyond the comparative safety of the frame rails, and other strong parts of the car.

    I'm sure those doors with the huge windows didn't help much, either.
  • andys120andys120 Loudon NHPosts: 20,029
    IIRC discontinuing the big rwd GMs, Impala included, had a lot to do with wanting to use the plant capcy to turn out trucks, which were more profitable and popular than big rwd sedans.

    It's noteworthy as well that the new GTO, a hot performer with a great name isn't selling well.
    Is there still a market for big coupes?

    2000 BMW 528i, 2001 BMW 330CiC

  • john_324john_324 Posts: 974
    Re the GTO, I think it's mainly because it looks like a Grand Am, which is to say it sports that somewhat out-of-date, aero-jellybean look.

    The next gen GTO, assuming it will have the more current blocky muscluar styling (like on the 300 or the new Mustang) should be a bigger hit I bet. Esp. with that LS2 engine. Whoa momma!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    that GM wanted to convert the plants over to production of SUVs, which were much more profitable, as well as the whole CAFE thing. While 17/26 is actually very good mileage for a car that big, these things were bringing GM's CAFE numbers down for cars, but in contrast a Yukon or Tahoe, getting maybe 14/18, wouldn't drag down the truck average as much.

    But I wonder if the crash standards might have had something to do with it, as well? Probably a combination of things.

    I think the GTO's problem is its styling...not enough flash to go with that substance. Shame, because I hear it's a great car. I wonder how the new Mustang will do, sales-wise? I think it's gonna be a winner. Maybe GM should have gone a little more retro with the GTO? At least, a little more retro than a '95 Cavalier coupe with a '92 Grand-Am nose! ;-)
  • grbeckgrbeck Posts: 2,361
    So far the Mustang is selling well. The November sales figures are very strong.

    The GTO is overpriced, with a sticker well over $30,000. A new Mustang GT is about $25,000. Maybe the GTO can outperform the Mustang, but the Mustang offers much sharper styling for a lower price. Plus, the Mustang GT offers enough performance for 99.9 percent of all drivers.

    The Mustang offers enough "go" and lots more "show" for much less money.
  • driftracerdriftracer Posts: 2,692
    discounted, dealers are now trying to unload them back of invoice and GM has a $3500 rebate if you finance through GMAC or Nuvell.

    You can get a GTO for $26,500 plus tax...pretty cool.
  • gearhead4gearhead4 Posts: 122
    Take a look a the new Mustang and you remember the original. The new Charger relates to the old model in name only (okay, it is rear wheel drive and does offer some nice power options). BUT...The new Charger's styling takes it's cues from the fourth generation 1975 Charger (a rebadged Cordoba).This was a faily comfortable car but was overweight, handled poorly and offered no high performance. This was the first Charger to feature the crosshairs grille. I wish it was the last.

    Three years ago, when DC first released a new Charger illustration with 4 doors, I liked the traditional, sleek, Coke bottle styling and lines that seemed to work well with 4 doors.

    The 2006 version looks like a brick in comparison.

    It looks bulky (I know, it IS bulky).

    The numbers say it performs well, but so does a turbo Bentley, but who considers that a sporting automobile?

    If DC resurrected a Charger that resembled a 68 Charger, I would be standing in line with deposit money in my hand. Instead, this old Mopar fan will be looking at Mustangs.

     

    Jim
  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    I think DCX wouldn't have so much resistence to the 4-door Charger if they hadn't come out with that fantastic 2-door Charger concept a few years back. That's got enthusiasts' mouths watering and naturally they're going to be disappointed by a more boring-looking sedan.

     

    Personally, I don't really have a problem with the sedan, although the back-end is too Intrepid-like for my tastes.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    is that if you look at the rear of the Charger, while the taillights look like they came off of an Intrepid, when they actually come on, there are twin circles on either side, just like the '68 Charger! Although I think the current Sebring and Stratus coupes do this, too.

     

    I think one problem with the Charger is that they just tried too hard to make it look agressive. As a result, it looks a bit silly, and not really that menacing. With the '68-70 Charger, they paid attention to the styling, making sure everything came together as once cohesive design. They didn't set out to make a menacing, intimidating looking car, but it just happened to turn out that way!

     

    I'm going to check out the Chargers when they come out, as I do kinda like them. But I still think the '68-70 is the most beautiful, most pure of the species.

     

    I really like the looks of the Mustang, but I need a bigger, more comfortable car. I'm the type that, back in 1968 would have taken a Charger over a Stang for the same reaon.

     

    That other Charger concept though, the one that came out around 1997, was gorgeous, though! It looked sleek and futuristic, while at the same time having a strong heritage with the older Chargers. I'd buy a 2006 Charger because I want a 4-door Mopar sedan to replace my Intrepid. However, if it looked like that concept I'd buy it because I lusted after it!
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 31,095
    Unfortunately, there probably not enough people that feel like you do to make it a success. besides, Dodge needs the 4 door yesterday, to go along with the magnum.

     

    At least the name gets people talking about the car! And it sounds like the car itself should be a winner. so what it has 4 doors, at least it has RWD and a high-HP V8 available. Certainly the R/T is the closest thing to a "real" Charger they have had since what, 1972?

     

    Maybe another name wouldn't have caused as much controversy (too strong a word?), but I doubt in the big scheme of the market place, it will impact sales much if at all.

     

    Look at it this way, if they called it "Fury", would you run out to buy one, even if you won't if it says "Charger" on the side? If you want a coupe, you will get one, ditto for a 4 door.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    if they called it "Fury" ;-) I got a little cranky when the Chrysler Sebring came out, because my first thought is "HEY, that's a Plymouth name!"

     

    I agree though, if I want a 4-door Dodge, I'm going to buy this thing whether they call it Charger, Magnum, Intrepid, Diplomat, St. Regis, Monaco, or Beaver (believe it or not, for a moment that was what they were going to call the Dodge Demon!)
  • stickguystickguy Posts: 31,095
    I realized after I posted that Fury was a Plymouth name, and guessed who would call me to the carpet on it!

     

    None of the Dodge names that I could remember sounded right. This isn't a car that should have a "formal" name (Monaco, St. Regis, etc.), and Charger actually sounds about right.

    2019 Acura TLX A-spec 4 cyl. (mine), and 2013 Acura RDX AWD (wife's)

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,382
    honestly, I think Charger is about the best name they could've called this car, if they wanted to reach into their past. Although Fury would make a dandy name, too!

     

    Come to think of it, most Dodge names from days gone by just weren't that memorable. Probably the most recognizable name would be "Dart", but a Dart this new Charger ain't! And try asking the typical person on the street who's less than 40 what a Coronet, Monaco, Polara, St. Regis, etc is, and they're gonna look at you like you lost your mind. Most people would know what a Charger is, though. And "Challenger" was a good name, although the car was little loved when new, and again, this new car doesn't really fit in the Challenger vein, either!
  • mirthmirth Posts: 1,212
    Autoextremist.com has been saying that they should have called the sedan a Magnum (just a sedan version of the wagon) and create a 2-door version and called that the Charger.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 13,137
    that would have made a lot of sense, except the 2 door would be kind of iffy. i went to an auto show in '03 where they had a pre d-c charger concept. it had a lot of 68-69 dna in it, and looked pretty good. i knew it would never happen, though. d-c is getting to be like nissan; nissan puts their 3.5 in everything. d-c is doing the same with the hemi.
    2017 Ford Fusion SE 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • m1miatam1miata Posts: 4,556
    They could call it the 300D --- D for Dodge ;-))

    Seem like these new cars feel funny when I sit in one. The doors are too high, the windshield seems far away, like I am sitting in the back seat or something, and the pillar for the windshield is too fat. Feels sort of like sitting is a very larger / fat New Beetle, with a large hood attached to the front. The plastic used looks cheap. Maybe the C class Mercedes Benz are better values? The new 'Stang looks closer to being a value, given another few months and the 2k or more savings with discounts start to kick in. Heck, the GTO, while not too flashy, looks OK to me, and would be an OK value at under $24k. Personally, I think today's prices are all getting way out of line. Starting to push into $30k range for Fords - Pontiacs - Dodges.... oh my, not worth it.
  • 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 fixation with 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.
  • 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 fixation with 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.
  • 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 fixation with 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.
This discussion has been closed.