Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
As for which looks better, the 300M or the 300C, I'm gonna have to go with the C. The new design really makes the LH cars look ooooold to me. And I liked the M when they came out! Plus, given the choice of the mediocre looking Charger with a Hemi and RWD and a 300M with V6 and FWD, I'll take the Charger every time.
High door sill? Yep, I hate 'em, but that seems to be the trend now. <shrugs>
Turboshadow
Now, big budget sci-fi movies, and to a lesser extent, big-budget sci-fi tv shows, can get away with miniatures and matte paintings, especially when they're showing stuff like outer space scenes, spaceships, etc, stuff that you've never seen full-size, so when you see it as a miniature, it doesn't look that bad. But when you see a real Charger in one shot, and then a 1/25th scale Ertl Charger jumping over a toy house with lichen trees and a yard made out of moss, it looks really bad!
So, Coy & Vance pretty much killed it for me. And the stories and acting was getting so bad by that time that they were making the characters on "Mama's Family" look like honorary members of Mensa!
Also, in that final season, the Dukes went up against Webster on ABC and "V" on NBC. I was a sci-fi nut back then, so I was tuned into "V" every friday night. Now if it was Jane Badler or Faye Grant up on that Hershey Park stage, then yeah, I would've definitely been doing some whooping and hollering! But Tom Wopat? No. Not even for John Schneider! ;-)
2006 Dodge Charger at an auto show. While many people were clustered around the new eye catching Ford Mustang, I never saw more than five people looking at the ungainly Charger and two of them were women polishing the car. This is no exaggeration.
Based on the auto show, if Daimler's future is hanging on such a lame offering I believe it is time to unload DCX stock.
While Daimler management continues to spend an exhorbitant amount of money in an effort to re-educate us as to what we want, other companies are delivering what we really want.
Instead of stepping up and acknowledging their mistake, I believe that Daimler management will ride this abomination until they are tossed upon the scrap heap of automotive history.
Agreed 100%. The Charger started becoming tarnished to me after '70.
Granted, the shelby offerings back in the 80s were pretty quick and offered performance that was absent from the anemic v-8 offerings of the mid to late 70s- but they too like most everything else made at the time were pretty crude. After all those "Chargers" were really nothing more than a hopped up Omni 024/Plymouth Horizon.
So that begs the question- did the fuss really start back when there was no internet? Or is the proclaimed legacy "abuse" merely because of the 2 added doors?
That said- imo the thread should be titled
Diamler's continued abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy, as the so called abuse started LONG ago.
Slipping an anemic v-8 into a rebaged Cordoba or a turbo motor into a Horizon or 024 hatchback and calling them "Chargers" is not abuse of the legacy, but a four door with some muscle is?
Unless of course one wants to include those of the mid to late 70s or worse yet the crappy econoboxes of the 80's as part of the "legacy" lol.
Doesn't make sense to me.
DCC has a literal gold mine on its hands with having another vehicle to strongly compete with the Crown Victoria for police and municipal sales. I have no doubt that they can take 40-50% of the cop market.
The '71-74 Charger was the most ungainly, overweight, and anemic car there was, it seems - again, the Dodge Omni platformed Shelby Charger was "spritely", as one magazine put it, but it was still an Omni/Horizon underneath.
Face it, coupes have a limited market - a 4 dr car has much more appeal to the masses, esepecially when you can take the family with you, go on vacation, get some groceries, and still be able to run a 13-14 second quarter and 0-60 in 6 seconds. That's before the obligatory modifications, of course.
The main reason it wasn't attracting as much attention as the Mustang was because the Mustangs were out on the floor, and people could get inside them. The Charger was on a raised platform, and not accessible to the general public.
there are a couple of obstacles to overcome with the charger. one is that there isn't really a need for the 5.7 in a cop car. 4.7 would be better. the other is that it better be durable and cheap to maintain and repair. i got these opinions from a site that has crown vic threads, but they make sense.
it seems the michigan state police kind of set the standard for testing. they already had '05. guess it will have to wait until '06 for the charger.
Maybe for supervisor or administrator vehicles the 4.7, or even a V-6 would do, but for highway action, that extra 100 hp is definitely usable and necessary.
The 3.5 Magnum did 0-60 in 9.1 seconds, which was slower than the Impala 3.8 (8.76 seconds), and Crown Vic (8.15 or 8.42 seconds, depending on the axle, 3.27:1 or 3.55:1). While the Magnum did come off as the slowest, that's still not too bad, considering they're using a fairly small engine in a fairly heavy RWD body. And FWIW, that 9.1 seconds is faster than the 2003 Intrepid, Impala, and Crown Vic that the MSP tested.
The 4.7 V-8 was actually slated to go in the LX cars at one time, and would be adequate as a police engine, especially when you consider that the Impala only has a 3.8 and the Crown Vic uses a 4.6.
However, the Hemi is a cheap, simple, durable design, and is actually cheaper to build than the 4.7 OHC V-8. It's faster when you need to stomp on it, but once you're just loafing along, mileage really isn't that much worse.
Also consider that police cars tend to get beefed up, which adds weight, not to mention all the equipment that goes in them. So a civilian car that might be just fine with a certain engine might actually be underpowered as a police car.
the durability of the hemi is still to be determined. assuming that is fine, there is also the rest of the vehicle to consider, as far as maintenance and repairs go. putting a light bar on the roof is pretty much most of the 'bling' you need!
My 14 year old nephew thought it looked like they had slapped a Ram front end onto a car.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
Further up the line though, in what was more traditional Dodge territory, the 1959 Royal and Custom Royal were replaced by the 1960 Matador and Polara, respectively. They were good looking cars, but were dated looking compared to Ford and GM rivals, and even the DeSotos and Chryslers that year were cleaner and more modern looking! They also really didn't look that much different from a Dart, so most buyers probably couldn't justify the added expense to move to a Polara/Matador.
I always thought "Matador" was a cool name. I wasn't too crazy about those later sedans that it went on though, that had single headlights and an exaggerated Dart-like beak. Those coupes that were sold from around '74-78 though, were so ugly they were cool!
And the good folks at allpar.com for this
http://www.allpar.com/cars/lx/dodge-charger.html
You can all see for yourselves, no need for me to say anything about this atrocity.
And isn't it better that the R/T designation is back on RWD V8 cars rather than Stratus coupes and Neons?
And 30 years from now, the few that did survive intact will be worth huge bucks to generation "Z" or whatever who fondly remember them from their youth... :-)
However, since the front has kind of a forward thrust, it does seem to give the car a longer looking hoodline than on the 300, which slopes back a bit. So at least they tried! Well, a little.
In the end, I can't imagine that Charger is going to be largely reviled...after all, it's not like there is a sea of other options out there if you're looking for a full-sized rwd heritage musclecar.
And considering that the last Charger I remember was a 4 cyl econo-hatch, this version looks pretty darn good. Esp. so when you consider its main competitor, the new GTO...whatever negative you can say about the Charger design, it can't be worse than "bloated Cavalier"... ;-)
Wanna see a perfect example of pictures looking better than the real thing? Just go on any online personals website and look at the pictures. I can guarantee you that most of those pictures look better than the real thing! Although that's because people often use pics that were taken 5 years ago, pics of other, better looking people, etc ;-)
And I agree, the Mustang does look better in person than in pictures, although I think it looks good in the pics, too! My biggest complaint about the new Stang is the rear...just has a cheap, unfinished look to it, and occasionally you can see some sloppiness in the way it was put together. But then, that's how the original was, so they're sticking with heritage! ;-)
I also don't think the new Stang looks quite right on the GT models with the extra lights in the grille. I think it's because the grille is a bit narrower on the new model than the old ones, and the lights are just too big, and too close together.
As for competition, I know the Charger is being compared to the GTO, mainly because they're both bringing back classic names that competed with each other in the past. I don't think they really compete any more, though. The GTO is more of a purpose-built 2+2 sporty coupe with a high performance engine and very limited market. But the Charger, as far as I'm concerned, is just another entry in the mid-to-almost-fullsized sedan category that contains a wide array of cars such as the Malibu, Impala, Accord, Camry, Altima, Ford 500, LaCrosse, LeSabre, Bonneville, Grand Prix, Avalon, etc. It just happens to be RWD and happens to offer a V-8 model, but it's still a mainstream family car, just as the Intrepid was.
Even in its heyday, the Charger wasn't a dedicated muscle car like the GTO was. The GTO started off with a 389-4bbl as the base engine (400-4bbl for '67). I don't think the '66-67 Charger offered a slant six, but it did offer engines as mundane as the old wideblock 318-2bbl. You could get a 383, 440, or 426 Hemi, but that was an extra-cost option. Every single Charger didn't automatically come as a musclecar, right out the door. And by 70, you could get a slant six, which was definitely NOT a musclecar, although it might have looked the part.
The Charger was actually a bit of a hybrid, intended to offer a bit of musclecar and a bit of personal luxury coupe, but it never went 100% into either category.
Turboshadow
I had an '88 LeBaron turbo coupe, but it was just the 2.2 liter 146 hp Turbo-I. Not bad for the time, but nothing to brag about. It was a good blend of power and economy, with 0-60 around the 9-9.5 second mark, I'd guess, and fuel economy of around 20 around town, and 28-30 on the highway. I've heard that the real hot one is the Dodge Spirit R/T. I think it had something like 224 hp and would do 0-60 in about 5.9 seconds!
A relative of mine has a 93 Sundance Duster that he loves. It's the V6, and he's put more agressive wheels and some suspension work into it. He got it a couple years ago at a relatively low mileage, and has had almost no trouble with it, including a couple almost cross country trips. Are they actually decent cars? He's only in his early 20s and has previous experience with worse cars, like a Lumina, Neon, K-Car etc. But he sure likes this little car.
Apparently they are total roller-coaster rides, with enough torque steer to jump you a lane of traffic if you really punch it. Can't beat those kinda kicks when it comes to everyday automotive fun! :-)
I sold my 91 Shadow Turbo (0-60 was around 7.5 sec, and I wasn't ding a clutch dump to acheive that either) to a couple who promptly turned around and traded it in on a Neon. The Shadow was probably more reliable. I thought about going to the dealer and offering him 50 bucks for it, but the insurance on that little joker was sky high.
That 3.0 in your buddies car is a known oil burner. Bad valve guides IIRC.
Turboshadow
Turboshadow
The Mitsubishi engines such as the 2.6 and 3.0 were troublesome, mainly known for burning oil, but I'm sure they had other problems as well. The Mopar 2.2 and 2.5 were pretty good though, and relatively simple to work on. They had an iron block and aluminum head though, which over time could play hell with the head gasket, as the two metals would expand and contract at different rates. And the turbos could get troublesome as they aged, but that seems to be the case even with modern cars. In my case, the turbo blew and the head gasket went, and the head warped all a bit past the 110,000 mile mark. Thankfully though, I was divorced by that time and it was the ex-wife's problem! The a/c also went around that timeframe.
The current 2.0 and 2.4 4-cylinders are based on the old 2.5. For some reason though, the 2.0 in the Neon became known for blowing head gaskets very early on. Maybe that was because they increased the power too much? Those old 2.2 and 2.5's only had around 96-100 hp unless you went turbo, but then this little 2.0 comes out with 132 hp, which was pretty astounding for the time. Maybe it was just too much for the engine?
I dunno if the 2.4 blows head gaskets like the 2.0 tends to. It seems like most of the hype was on the 2.0.
Since we're talking about late or early model Chryslers...my brother had a 83 Plymouth Turismo 2.2 and ended up with over 180,000 miles before he sold it...I had a 88 Chrysler Convertible with the 2.5 and i just gave it away to charity this year with over 190,000 miles on it...i never had the mechanical problems people are talking about here...clutch was the same even! I love Mopar products even though i went on to BMW's and now drive wifes Fords...but i can see myself in one of those Chargers R/T's...love the looks....
Does anyone covet them these days...I haven't seen one in years. Does anyone even know someone who owns one? What was the Maserati part of them anyway...it looked like a LeBaron with a portal-ed window hardtop.
Does anyone covet them these days...I haven't seen one in years. Does anyone even know someone who owns one? What was the Maserati part of them anyway...it looked like a LeBaron with a portal-ed window hardtop. " -end quote-
Saw one in a used car show room, with some other more expensive model, left and right. Looked pretty good, but has a few rough spots. Not bad considering the age. The BODY is by Maserati and the engine is Chrysler. I assume, like the Scion tC, the Chrysler "TC" stands for Touring Coupe.
I don't think they're a bad looking car, but personally, I think the '87 LeBaron coupe and convertible just came out much better looking, and at a much lower price. There's a reason the cars look so similar, though. From what I recall, the TC style was actually thought up first, around 1983-84, but then got put on hold. So they ended up cribbing that style and modifying it a bit for the '87 LeBaron. But then they turned around and decided to produce the TC anyway, and since it came out second, the cheaper LeBaron pretty much stole its thunder, and making it look like an also-ran.
Seems like things come full swing again, this time with different names. Instead of the "K" car saving Chrysler and making them profitable now the "LX" car is the profitable platform. Interestingly enough, the Mercedes division is slipping in quality control and is in danger of falling to number 5 under Lexus,Infiniti, BWW and Acura in luxury quality and reliability, this according to the JD Power and associates survey. So the Germans have done some good with Chrysler making them more reliable and of better quality control, while losing market share in there Mercedes division.
One thing I've noticed is that, usually, Chrysler does fairly well in the middle of a decade, but then by the end of the decade things start to take a turn for the worse. I wonder if they're doomed to repeat this cycle, and while they might get a few good years out of the LX car, by the end of the decade they might start running into problems again?
(Don't get me wrong, I love the Hemi of today, just disappointed when you find out that the American icon is made in Mexico.)
I agree with you andre when you say they hold on to a design platform to long, although the of days of being able to tell the difference between a 1968 Charger from a 69 by simply looking at the split bumper of the 69 or the round tail lights of the 68 etc. It will be interesting to see what Chrysler comes out with next. They seem to be on the same path as GM with new models coming out over the next several years(American Revolution). In this case it seems that Chrylser has won the early battle with high horse power, in your face styling , and plenty of horse power. I'm anxiously awaiting the Firepower and Challenger. Look for the Challenger to be a re skinned version of the Firepower with less luxury items. Hopefully it will be in an obtainable price of under 40K so average income people can afford it.(Please, if Dodge makes the Challenger, lose the truck grill)
I kinda liked them, though I think I only ever saw one or two on the roads. That T-bird-like hardtop was pretty distinctive, esp. in the 1980s. Did they come with a manual transmission option?
Evidently there were 3 engines available: the 2.2 Turbo I or Mitsubishi 3.0 V-6, both mated to automatic trannies, or a more powerful Chrysler 2.2 with a Maserati DOHC head, which could only be had with the 5-speed Getrag manual.
Interestingly, Chrysler had three twin cam heads for the 2.2/2.5 turbo: R/T head by Lotus, Maserati head, and a head by Hans Hermann that never reached production stage, though numerous prototypes were made.
Turboshadow
;-) [Kidding!]
Making a public nuisance of yourself to a spokesmodel in Texas is sure to get the attention of the folks in Detroit and make them wipe the slate clean and start over...or get you arrested - I'm thinking the latter -
It's a shameful day for us fellow Texans...