Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

stickguy · January 2005

But, it is kinda hard to shroud a straight 6!

I don't like them, because it makes it difficult to do a quick visual check fro problems (leaks, loose wire, whatever).

Of course, these days I don't even know what most of the stuff is, but I can still tell if it is leaking!

jae5 · January 2005

Any thoughts on the infamous ADM (Adjusted Dealer Mark-up)? Do any of you feel the Dodge dealers are going to do the same thing the Chrysler guys did when the PT came out? And mimic the Pontiac dealers with the new-gto, with their $5 - $8K markups.

I remember seeing one dealer advertise base PTs going for $27K while they had two 1 yr.-old demo 300Ms going for $22 - $24K! The higher level PTs where going for mid-$30K.

Just wondering how much the gouge is going to be and if there will be some dealers that will not.

As a side note, those who bought the new-gto 6spd dodged the $1000 gas-guzzler tax that was tacked on for the automatic. But I believe they had to pay $695 to get the Tremec 6spd as it was optional, may be wrong though.

andre1969 · January 2005

with the Charger. The PT Cruiser was a hot little number when it first came out, so it was only natural that the dealers would tack on a bunch of fees.

IIRC, the Chrysler 300 was going for sticker price for awhile too, and some of them were selling with markups when they first came out.

It's hard to say with the Charger, though. Back in September, I got enticed down to the dealer, where they were giving away barbeque tool kits free with a Magnum test drive.

I drove a mid-level SXT that had a sticker price of around $26,500. Salesman right off the bat said I could probably get it for about $24K. They also had an SXT in the color I really love, Magnesium, with leather. It was a bit over $27K, but had a few thousand miles on it. He said I could get that one even cheaper.

So evidently, they're willing to deal on a lot of these cars now. The Charger will probably get marked up, at first, but it'll come back down to Earth before too long!

driftracer · January 2005

on many of these situations, but I was raised dirt poor, so I've never had to have the latest and greatest.

Some dealer groups use ADM stickers on all their vehicles, others just on hot sellers. The more comical ones, in recent memory, were the Lincoln Blackwood, which sold at $10k over sticker, then sold at invoice minus a $10k rebate 6 months later; another is the Thunderbird, same deal, same money over sticker, now they're invoice minus a $4k rebate...

People absolutely FLOCKED to these things, especially the T-bird, and now have lost their collective butts when comparing a nearly $20k difference in what you paid for a T-bird when they first came out versus what you could pay now...

Comical, I tell you, but that's the price you pay for having to have the neatest, fastest, coolest new thing...

I bought my 2003 PT GT new in January 2003, paying invoice minus a $3500 rebate. Of course, when I traded it, they hit me at $3k back of book because they aren;t hot anymore - I really didn't get hurt in it, buying it for $18,500, putting on 59,000 miles, and getting $10,500 in trade just under 2 years later.

To think that my braggart brother, older than I, paid $600 in 1979 money ($2500 now?) for a HUGE Panasonic Beta VCR. Only one on his block at the time, along with his new microwave oven, but now you can get a DVD/VCR combo for less than $60. Same for a decent microwave.

Ironic, poetic justice.

andre1969 · January 2005

did very many people...actually pay all that money for the Blackwoods and T-birds? Or were they more like the GTO where they just sat on the lot until the dealers begged you to take them off their hands?

There's a dealer around here that will occasionally put ADMU stickers of $995, $1000, and occasionally, when they're feeling really ballsy, $1995 on every car on the lot. Even if it was a Cavalier, Malibu, or base Impala!

They also offered these Cavalier and Impala "SS"es, which amounted to little more than a graphics package and a $2995 or so dealer markup. The Cav coupe "SS" actually looked pretty sharp in blue and silver, but the Impala was a sham. Aftermarket leather and ribs and wings, and a few SS badges. And often, not even an alloy wheel...usually they'd just have the base plastic hubcap!

driftracer · January 2005

needs a car guy calling the shots and not a beancounter.

I had a guy trade in a 1992 Suburban 1500 4x4 "SS" back in 1994. He swore up and down it was Chevy package - I explained that it didn't exist and was just stickers and stuff, and he got mad that he paid $4995 over MSRP, plus paying MSRP, for a 4x4 in Wyoming...4x4s are needed there, so they're not rare. He was $12k upside down, still traded it, used a bunch of cash and a rebate, and swallowed his pride. We took off the silly stickers that any GM fan would know don't belong.

I've already seen a few 300Cs done up with bling-bling wheels and roadster tops, so I'm sure a few Chargers will end up that way, but maybe not so bad. The dolled up 300C looks like a Cadillac or similar car, whereas the Charger won't exude "luxury" and should draw the drug dealer crowd.

I'm looking forward to see some tuned versions of the Charger, though - should be interesting with 18 or 20" tuner wheels and coil-over suspension...

andre1969 · January 2005

has a 300 Touring, and he blinged it up a bit. It's still not TOO bad, though. He put a spoiler on the trunk, and those window guards that let you roll down the windows a bit in the rain.

Inside though, the greatest travesty he did was buying a wood kit for it. When I saw it I made a comment along the lines of him setting the premium American sedan back 25 years. Or "suddenly its 1979", or something like that!

Although to be fair, his 300 is Cool Vanilla with a light colored interior, and he picked a light wood color, so it's really not too far off from the "cashmere/driftwood" interior of my '79 NYer, and I think it wears it pretty well.

PF_Flyer · January 2005

I may turn out to be favorably impressed with the Charger, but as the Inside Line story says, time will tell!

Danger Lurks for Dodge Charger's Comeback as a Sedan

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

The SUBARU CREW Chat is on tonight. Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

grbeck · January 2005

...I always thought those cashmere/driftwood interiors on the 1979 R-body New Yorker weren't bad looking. That color combination would be a nice change from the mouse-fur gray that 90 percent of today's vehicles feature!

As for the Thunderbird and Blackwood - I don't know about the Blackwood (didn't Lincoln sell fewer than 5,000 overall?), but I do believe that more than a few people did pay well over sticker for the Thunderbird.

jae5 · January 2005

Same here. Out of all the vehicles I've owned, only one was bought brand new, and I waited and waited and went around until I got the best deal. I laughed myself at the Blackwood, T-Bird, Marauder, and now laughing at the GTO. Really laughed when that person put one on Ebay looking for a suck...I mean "enthusiast" to pay $50K for it. I know of some people (from posting) that paid the $5k - $8K+ mark-ups on those things, already over-priced @ $35K, bragging about being the "first". Now you can pick up an '04 for roughly $20 - $20K if you factor in rebates, incentives and other things. And I've still only seen four on the street since it came out last year.

andre1969 · January 2005

is going to do much better than limited-production cars like the GTO, T-bird, and Blackwood. For one thing, those other cars were trying to build cachet and exlusivity, but in the end they ended up being about the modern day equivalent of the 1981 Imperial. That was another car that, when announced, was going to have limited production to boost snob appeal. They were going to build "just" 25,000 in the first year. Well, in the end they built about 7225 that year, maybe 3-4K the next, and about 2-3K in '83.

In contrast, I look at the Charger as more of a 2006 Intrepid with a different name, than any kind of resurgence of a great name from the past. It's the kind of car that, when I'm in the market for something to replace my Intrepid, I'll go check it out. If I like it I'll buy it. If not, I'll buy something else or hold onto the Intrepid. But still, it's just a mass-marketed car with a cool name.

stickguy · January 2005

Besides, the majority of the Chargers are going to roll out with the 3.5 V6 anyway.

Not a bad looking car. I'll be interested in seeing one in person. WHen are these actually going to be available? Hopefully I can see one at the Phila auto show in a few weeks.

ON another thread, someone posted some drawings of what is supposed to be the next Neon. Looks like a Charger nose, but very sharp from the side. Really sharp.

andre1969 · January 2005

if the Charger might still move a good percentage of Hemi models? I think with the 300, about 40-50% of them are the Hemi C, leaving the lower base, Touring, and Limited models to scrap for the remaining 50-60%.

And, at least they're not sticking the 2.7 in the Charger! Although I think ther might be a fleet special that might be getting 2.7's.

Even though I have a 2.7 in my Intrepid, and it's been a great motor for me, I really wish they would retire it. At least, it doesn't belong in a car this size. These engines are very expensive to replace when they go bad, much more than a bigger 3.5, and probably more than the Hemi as well, which is supposed to be a dirt-cheap engine to build. They've also developed a bit of a reputation for sludging, although I have a feeling that it's probably in the same league as the Toyota 3.0. Meaning driver neglect more than anything else.

andyman73 · January 2005

Since you are in that business, can you recall when you noticed engine shrouds being used? My 85 325e w/2.7 I6 didn't have one. My 99 Contour and wifes 04 Sable don't have them either. None of my Honda's had them either. I see so many pictures in car rags that show the hood up and a nicely shrouded engine. Oooh that really looks like a nice......hmmm can't tell, can't see the engine. Know what I mean?

I like the Charger, and would be happy to drive one. Upgrade the wheels and suspension, open the exhuast a little, remove the dumb engine shroud...could be a fun car.

driftracer · January 2005

have domestics started using engine shrouds - German imports started using them on may models in the late 80s/early 90s.

jae5 · January 2005

Any thoughts as to this connection? Meaning, is one of the reasons the Charger is coming back is because of NASCAR. Am wondering this because I caught a glimpse of a Dodge making the rounds during testing this past weekend on Speedvision.

Take the shape of Charger's quarter panels and rear window / deck area for instance. Re-shaped to help the car get through the wind. Using a Magnum-esque front end, again, better for track duty. Can't really see DCX using a box 300C for NASCAR.

driftracer · January 2005

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3313702

It's already done...

http://www.dodge.com/autoshow/news/ (read the bottom of the page)

m1miata · January 2005

ALL the NASCAR autos look the same now. Now that old pic http://msn.foxsports.com/id/3313696 of the 43 car looks awesome! The cars all looked, let's say, stock. Ah, that is right, it is called stock car racing. The new Charger should fit right in with the rest = boring. Well I may add, the FWD Monte Carlo has some style to her. Give her a 5 on the floor, RWD, and a gas pedal with is not place low in relationship to the brake, and ya got a real car there. Even an automatic would do, I guess.

Loren

driftracer · January 2005

back, he was wishing that cars had style like in the old days, when you could tell a Ford from a Chevy from a Dodge...he said now, all cars just look like used bars of soap...

grbeck · January 2005

With the need for aerodynamics, it's harder to give cars distinguishing features. I'm anxious to see the Charger in real life - in the photos, it has an aggressive, distinctive look that recalls the domestic cars of the 1960s. It will be interesting to see how that translates into real life.

m1miata · January 2005

" With the need for aerodynamics, it's harder to give cars distinguishing features. I'm anxious to see the Charger in real life - in the photos, it has an aggressive, distinctive look that recalls the domestic cars of the 1960s. It will be interesting to see how that translates into real life. "

Yeap, looks like the rectangular box look of '65, but they could have had the beauty of '67 - '73 models of USA cars instead. Too bad. The 300M is aerodynamic and had distinguished features. Boxes don't really look aero to me, though some cheat air more than meets the eye. I imagine those gawd-awful high door window sills will be on new Charger too. Cars are starting to look and feel like chop top tanks. Put a gun turret on the top and ya got it.

Loren

PF_Flyer · January 2005

I'm in the camp of wishing for the return of "style", meaning the time when you COULD tell cars apart with a quick glance. If you design cars for aerodynamic performance, they HAVE to wind up looking alike. Rather than bars of soap, I think they all tended to look like Taurus' of differing sizes!

Maybe that's why I don't have as strong a reaction about the Charger. At the very least, you can tell what it is with a quick look.

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

The MAZDA MANIA Chat is on tonight. Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

andre1969 · January 2005

if the cars are REALLY starting to look all alike, or if it's just because we're thinking that they all look alike. I know that might not make much sense, but if you look back through various car publications and automotive history books, it seems like people have been griping about the cars all looking alike since probably the dawn of automotive history.

I wonder if it's something that is just ingrained into us in childhood, which is when most boys start getting interested in cars. The first thing they do is learn to memorize all the different names and styles, both of the cars that are new at the time, but also older cars that are still somewhat common.

Then, as we get older, there are more important things to think about than cars, so all the different styles and nuances of each model sort of get put on the back burner, and as a result, we start thinking that they all look alike.

I have friends who aren't all that into old cars, and while they can identify just about every current model out there, when it comes to something from the 50's, 60's, 70's, or 80's, they all look alike to them.

One of my buddies has a 1978 Mark V. I asked another one of my friends what he thought of it, and he said "It looks just like your car", as he was thinking of my '79 New Yorker. Now, maybe that might be a bad example, as both cars were styled by the same people. A bunch of Ford stylists jumped ship and went to Chrysler around the same time as, and even before Iacocca.

The auto industry is also very reactionary and trendy. As soon as one car discovers a new trend, suddenly everybody else is jumping all over it. Often whether the trend has really caught on or not!

In the 60's though, and onward into the 70's, the cars DID start getting to be more and more alike. The biggest cars really didn't get that much bigger, but the smaller ones certainly did. For example, between 1956 and 1976, a full-sized Chevy grew by a much larger amount than a Caddy DeVille did. Same with Fords and Plymouths, versus Lincolns and Imperials/New Yorker Broughams.

Another trend started catching on, big time in the late 70's: badge engineering. In the past, while a variety of different cars might have shared the same platform, window glass, and even running gear, at least the sheetmetal, bumpers, grilles, interiors, etc, were different enough to make the cars unique. But with badge engineering, the cars started using pretty much the same sheetmetal, with only easy-swap items such as grilles (or if you were lucky, the header panel), taillights, and trim being changed. And since the place where the taillight went was the same shape regardless of car, that meant that there could only be so much differentiation in taillights.

I think aerodynamics did play a big role in making the cars all look alike, as there are only so many shapes you can come up with that are aerodynamic. And now that cars don't have very many things that stick out on them, such as taillights, grilles, bumpers, creases, ridges, etc, it tends to give the car a generic look.

One trend that's really bugging me now is how it seems like everybody's going for the same triangular-shaped Camry/Taurus-esque taillight treatment. Buick recently started it with the LaCrosse. And now it looks like the 2006 Impala is going to do it as well!

driftracer · January 2005

"Rather than bars of soap, I think they all tended to look like Taurus' of differing sizes!"

It was a newly restyled 1996 Taurus that Dad was referring to...

PF_Flyer · January 2005

While it's true that everyone might jump on a styling trend, (fins and chrome come to mind) it used to be a LOT easier to determine not only manufacturer, but also model year at a quick glance. A '56 Chevy was pretty distinct from a '57. But it's MUCH tougher now. I think it's easier to tell apart years on old VW Beetles than it is on cars from the last 10-15 years. For example, which of the following in the '95 and which is the '96?? (no cheating and looking at the image properties...LOL)

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

The MAZDA MANIA Chat is on tonight. Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

andre1969 · January 2005

back then, even the changeovers from year to year, within the same design cycle of a car could often be pretty substantial. For example, in the '55-57 Chevy, not only did they change stuff like the grilles, chrome, interior, and taillights, but they even changed the sheetmetal!

Then, fast forward to today. Now, I'll admit, I can usually pick out a 2000 Intrepid base model from all the others, because of some subtle differences. But I have also owned one for over 100,000 miles too. If I didn't, they'd probably all look alike!

Anyway, the 1999 base Intrepids used a 15" wheel and different wheelcover. 2000 was the first year that the 16" "twisted star" wheel/hubcap was used. For 2001 they used the same wheelcover, but started calling the base model "SE". They put the "SE" label on the black plastic part of the rear door, right after the rear window. For 2002 they cheapened the interior, changed the hubcaps, and moved the "SE" to the trunk of the car.

Considering how little they change these cars yet they STILL can't make money on them, it makes me wonder how they could afford to make such substantial changes every single year, back in the old days!

fintail · January 2005

I think that is so true...younger people who at least casually follow cars can differentiate modern cars, if by make and model rather than year (as cost cutting has eliminated most year changes) while thinking most old cars are all the same...while people who used to follow cars but lost the desire can tell a 59 Chevy from a 60 Chevy by the bumper, but can't tell a Taurus from a ES330. It's all relative. I've had younger people not even realize my fintail is a MB. One guy thought it was a Bentley!

andyman73 · January 2005

Couldn't tell your fintail was a fintail? Now that is just plain wrong! I mean come on, what's wrong with kids these days?

fintail · January 2005

Here's what I got once "Are you the guy who has the old blue Bentley?"

This was at college....nobody had an actual Bentley to cause confusion, for sure. Funny though, kids and older people appreciate that car most.

When my grandpa started to go downhill, he was pretty sure that my 126 was a Chrysler.

m1miata · January 2005

Why not add a Charger badge to an Intrepid R/T ? Slick and sporty - around 250HP. The 300M looked great side and back profile, with a so-so look to the front. The new 300 is different, I must say something to get noticed. With imagination, you could transform it into a poor man's Bently, or otherwise think of it more as a Marathon, Checker Cab. Saw one in black and it was kinda rich looking. Just don't paint it yellow ;-)) The rear wheel drive was an excellent idea, the change in lines from slick and flowing, to boxy and flat sided, I could have done without. And at what point do the door window sills stop moving higher? Soon, only a slit of a window will remain. Side windows will be gun ports?

Loren

210delray · January 2005

Well, if the window sills get any higher, we'll be back to 1954!

About cars looking alike, I read a novel published in about 1959. One of the main characters had a new Pontiac Bonneville.

At some point in the book, someone remarked that all modern cars looked alike. In 1959 no less, the year General Motors went wild! And Chrysler was into its third year of the gigantic fins!

andre1969 · January 2005

the letters to the editor section of an old Consumer Reports from the late 50's, where one reader was griping, asking if GM could possibly roll their sheetmetal any thinner! I would've loved to have seen the look on that poor sap's face, maybe 20 or 30 years later (or today), since sheetmetal has only gotten thinner!

I think people have always been griping about how "they don't make 'em like they used to", and probably always will. And I don't think it's necessarily about things being better or worse. Just different from what you're used to. For instance, I got used to a lot of those plush, padded cushy interiors of the late 70's and 80's, so in contrast when I see some of these new cars that are out, the interiors just look stark, at best. Who would've ever dreamt you could do so much with plastic?!

m1miata · January 2005

It seems while cars do look different over the years, it is not always better. An example is a 1959 Mercedes SL

which in the 1960's became more squared, and is now once again a beauty. And look at the new SLK - what a beauty. I think there are some good looking cars being built today and more on the way for 2006 models, though I do wish I could hang an elbow out the window without throwing my arm out of the socket. The new car door window sills seem to match about chin height to the driver. That's just wrong. OK, at the least it looks bad, feels bad, and you don't have that feel for speed as you are driving along. Heck, parking may be dangerous, as you can not see what is on the other side of the car.

Loren

andyman73 · January 2005

Sorry about your Grandpa. When my Grandpa-in-law, was on his downslope, after 40 years of Parkinsons...he started seeing all sorts of construction equipment in the cornfield behind the house. He passed on 7 years ago, and cornfield is still cornfield.

fintail · January 2005

My grandpa's bad spell was mercifully short. He always complimented the fintail, but the newer car he just couldn't grasp.

And kind of on subject...he was a Mopar man back in the 60s and 70s, he liked Chrysler sedans especially. His favorite was a red 65 that he kept for about 5 years - a long time for him. I have to wonder if he'd like the 300 or the upcoming Charger. I know he was not happy when Chrysler went FWD and got smaller - he went to GM after that. I think he'd like the big RWD newer cars, and maybe even buy one. I wonder if these new cars will win over old Mopar fans who lost interest 20 years ago.

andre1969 · January 2005

I lost a lot of interest in Chrysler when they started switching en masse to FWD. That ended up pissing off a lot of older Mopar fans, and in fact, roughly at that point Chrysler itself got divided into the "Old Chrysler" and the "New Chrysler". The "New Chrysler" pretty much started when Iacocca took over, and while a few RWD models were introduced after that, such as the R-body (1979-81 full-size) and J-body (1980-83 Cordoba/Mirada and '81-83 Imperial), they were still considered products of the "Old Chrysler", and weren't really all-new. The R-body was just a heavy facelift of the old '71-79 B-body intermediates, and the Cordoba/Mirada, Imperial, and M-body LeBaron/Diplomat/Gran Fury/New Yorker/5th Ave were all based on the '76 Volare.

Nowadays though, even with the return to V-8 engines and RWD, and all that other cool stuff, I think the excuse among the die-hard Mopar fans now is that it's a German company, and not really a Chrysler!

fintail · January 2005

I think he could have handled that...he never minded my Mercedes, and didn't react poorly when I told him the 126 wasn't a Chrysler. I consider the new RWD cars to be real Chryslers, unlike the billion K-car clones etc.

grbeck · January 2005

It seemed as though a fair number of Mopar fans went to Olds and Buick in the early 1980s, when Chrysler had its near-death experience.

Somehow, I doubt that they will go for the new 300C or Charger, as they are now most likely behind the wheel of a Buick Century or LeSabre.

I can't imagine a group of owners less likely to switch to the in-your-face Mopars.

fintail · January 2005

I think some older people are buying them. Who buys the ones with the landau tops? There's a little development of hilariously overpriced little homes for retirees on a spur off my street, and there are two 300s living there. Although these people might be younger than those who gave up on Mopar at age 60 20 years ago.

andyman73 · January 2005

My afore mentioned Pappy in law, his last new purchase was a 79 LTD w/302. By then Grandma was diagnosed with Alheimer's so, no need for a second car.

My own paternal Grandfather...his last new purchase was a 72 Beatle for Grandma. Her first was a 46(?) Beatle bought new in Germany. Moved to U.S. in early spring of 48. But Grandpa(died in Jan of 74 when I was 2 mos. old.) was a die hard Chrysler man, Hemis all the way.

Dad and Grandma went together to get their driver's license, in 63, in a 63 Chrysler wagon w/413 Hemi.

Maternal grandparents are still alive and kicken, they are mid 70s, and drive a 15 Jimmy 4X4, and an 98 Camry. They were die hard Chebby, and bought a new one every other year. Until the stock market crash of 89. That was the year he retired, and they decided to spread out their purchases. I guess it was a financial wake up call for them.

Dad tells me that when his father was a student at Drexel U., his roommate and best friend, would loan him his car for dates and stuff.(Grandma was born when Grandpa was 18yrs old.) Roommate was a Philly mainliner, car was some late 20s model Duesenburg. A new one, at that. According to Grandpa, as told by Dad, the Duesey was good for about 135mph! So, that's where my like of all things automotive come from.

I just wish I could have gotten to know him. He would have been 95, two weeks ago. I'll have to wait till I get to heaven to hear all his car stories.

m1miata · February 2005

They can call it what they may, but a 300 is never going to be a Charger. The Charger R/T future car looks so promissing, but what the heck went wrong? If you go to Dodge website and view the future cars, the Charger R/T looks petty darn cool. Give me one of those cars with a 250HP V6 and I would be ever so happy. The one they are passing off as the Charger looks like some amateur customization of the 300. The 300 is what it is, an in your face car that looks somewhat like a Bently, or any big box luxo car. That is fine. How do you go from that to sporty? The designs work on Charger R/T and the Razor and put some fun back into Dodge. The Magnum is pretty cool = super station wagon. The 300 conversion works pretty good there. The Razor is a cool idea, though I already have a Miata. Hope the Razor is a skosh larger than the Miata, as it is pretty tight. If they could get it to market soon, you would have the Miata and Solstice to choose from. The new Eclipse looks interesting. The Mustang is likely to lead them all by a wide margin. Gosh, one does miss the days of competition between Mustang, Challenger, Baracuda, Camaro and AMX/Javalin. While I have own Stangs, and think they look fine, I always loved the others = all those aforementioned.

grbeck · February 2005

The Charger R/T concept car wouldn't sell all that well. Like it or not, most mainstream buyers don't want swoopy, low-slung four doors. And the market for true coupes is limited.

Dodge needs a volume car to replace the Intrepid, and a car based on the Charger R/T concept (which had four doors, if I recall correctly, even though it was styled to resemble a coupe) would probably not have been a big (enough) seller.

m1miata · February 2005

"" The Charger R/T concept car wouldn't sell all that well. Like it or not, most mainstream buyers don't want swoopy, low-slung four doors. And the market for true coupes is limited.

Dodge needs a volume car to replace the Intrepid, and a car based on the Charger R/T concept (which had four doors, if I recall correctly, even though it was styled to resemble a coupe) would probably not have been a big (enough) seller

"" end quote.

You may indeed be correct. Most people don't appreciate cars as art, nor have fun driving them. This is sad. Only the minority seem interested in the auto these days. Most like the boring SUVs and bland and boring cars to take them from point A to point B. And currently we have all these cars with armored doors, which have the door sills up to the chin. Guess those are ready to do battle with the SUVs of this world. I hate it! Not only can you not hang an elbow out ( when safe to do so ), you can not see anything on the other side. Poor kids in parking lots? And instead of the feel of speed and the roadside seems to be rushing by, you get nothing but a closed in feeling, like driving in your coffin. If they keep this up, used cars will look pretty darn good in comparison. Not sure about the Mustang, as I think it is somewhat in-between as far as door height. The 300 line of Chryslers have the tall doors with the chop top look. Can we all say, Mercury chop tops, at your local Chrysler deal. Is that a good thing ;-)

andre1969 · February 2005

would be if Dodge had just held onto the Intrepid nameplate for their volume car, and then gone ahead and release that close-coupled, swoopy 4-door and called it "Charger".

Actually, at one time, that was the plan. A few years back when taller cars started catching on, Chrysler was planning on releasing a taller, family oriented LX car that would be sold under Dodge and Chrysler nameplates, and then a sportier, high performance, more low-slung model was to be offered: 300 in the case of Chrysler, and Charger for Dodge.

I guess somewhere along the line though, they figured that they could get away with just one body for the Chrysler and use it to span everything from the entry level models on up to the high performance C. And Dodge just kind of got forgotten, as the final Intrepids rolled off the assembly line in September of 2003. While the Magnum has been a decent seller for Dodge, they can't expect a station wagon to pick up all the volume of a mainstream 4-door sedan!

explorerx4 · February 2005

i think the high beltline was determined by the hemi engine, which was designed for a truck, and has a taller body.

m1miata · February 2005

""

i think the high beltline was determined by the hemi engine, which was designed for a truck, and has a taller body.

"" [end of quote]

I wish that was the case, but most all the new cars have that strange look and feel to them. Even sports cars like the Tiburon have those awful high door sills. The 350Z is just ridiculous, with those little side windows. Are these things army tanks now??? As far as looks go, I wonder if there was a poll taken for those liking say the 300 vs 300M, which car would win? Just look at the lines on the Intrepid and how it looks like a futuristic concept car at the Detroit Auto Show. As a box goes, the 300 is not as bad as the so called Charger pretending to be a sporty car. OK, it is not the worse looking car of all time, but it is a far cry from the future car concepts presented prior as the Charger. Oh well, if it sells and makes money, that is good for DCX. I am sure someone will simply fall head over heels for the new Charger. I say bring on the Razor... that will be a cool looking car. Perhaps too small though. I say this, though I have a Miata -- talk about micro!

stickguy · February 2005

one of the columns in this weeks issue of Autoweek was about this topic. Don't remember exactly what he said, but he did bring up the '70 models (024, etc.), and basically told the whiners to suck it up, that Chrysler wasn't going to change the name for them.

I beleive he referred to the noise makers as 35 YO trekkies living in their mothers basement, but that could have been in another article.

andre1969 · February 2005

because in its final season, "The Dukes of Hazzard" got tromped by Webster! ;-)

I saw Tom Wopat doing a little concert at Hershey Park back in 1995, so I guess his career didn't exactly skyrocket after that. Actually, let me rephrase that. We went to Hershey Park that day, and Tom Wopat just happened to be there. We did NOT go there just to see him!!

driftracer · February 2005

but John Schneider is Clark's (superman's) father in Smallville!

disappointed2 · February 2005

I don't see what the big fuss is all about - Chrysler has used the "Charger" name on a LOT worse cars back in the 70's and 80's.

Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles