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.

1789101113»

Comments

  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    Must have me mistaken for someone else.

    I really like the new Charger. I have been defending it.

    But don't be alarmed if someone else criticizes the Charger here. Check the title of the discussion.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    just don't say "rice" in these forums. The hosts hate it when you say "rice".

    And to be fair, yeah, considering the forum title, some Charger bashing is to be expected here. Now if it were a Charger OWNERS' forum, that would be different, although even there things could get heated. I remember about 5 years ago, things got nasty on the Intrepid owners forum. There was one guy who had nothing better to do than slam the car all day long. And he either had multiple personalities (and multiple IDs) and would post so that he could carry on conversations with himself, or he'd get his buddies to jump on and rag on the Intrepid, too. And then, of course, you'd get the owners defending their cars, and it just got to the point that even when someone came on with a legitimate complaint about the car, some of the owners would jump on the poster, thinking it was that guy trying to stir up trouble.

    Admittedly, the Charger does have its job cut out for it. Not only is it going to get ragged on by people who just hate this type of car (big, domestic, muscular, etc), but also by the die-hards that think the only way it would be a "real" Charger would be if it were a Hemi coupe with a stick-shift option.

    Heck, I'm just glad they're building the thing! Even if it's not everybody's idea of a perfect car, at least it's something different. If you want a competent but somewhat generic, roomy FWD car, there are plenty to choose from...500, Impala, and any number of Japanese models. At least the Charger gives us some more variety.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    Xtec, as it is, I think you're the only person here who actually owns a new Charger...so unlike the rest of us, you've been willing to actually put your money where you mouth is. You should absolutely defend your choice.

    As for the "opposition", don't let them get you down too much...so far, nobody has been able to offer any compelling reasons other than the 4-door thing as to why it's not a proper Charger.

    Andre, did this guy really carry on conversations with himself, via different accounts/screennames?! Wow...in the realm of internet lameness, that takes the cake... :surprise:
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    John, well nothing ever got proven, but we're almost positive that he did use multiple screen names. He was Canadian, and claimed to be a police officer. He also had a major beef with the United States for some reason, so he would throw out the occasional political tirade.

    He would send a message ragging on how horrible his Intrepid was, and how horrible the Intrepids their police force had were, and how they were looking forward to getting replacement Impalas in. Then a few seconds later, someone from supposedly the same police department would post a message agreeing with everything he said.

    If nothing else, it beat the heck out of Jerry Springer and all those dumb TV courtroom shows. It could get entertaining.

    Oh, and a lot of us were called stupid, retarded, etc, for buying Intrepids. So hang in there Xtec, you're not alone! ;)
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    That's really unfortunate. One of the reasons I like the edmunds.com forums is that they're on the whole populated by reasonable people who just want to talk about cars. It's always annoying when someone like that drags things into the gutter.

    The various "marque" forums out there are pretty scary sometimes...I'm often utterly amazed at the venom of some of the residents of these boards.
  • tlmurdocktlmurdock Member Posts: 9
    "...so far, nobody has been able to offer any compelling reasons other than the 4-door thing as to why it's not a proper Charger"

    My perspective on this is:

    1) I never bought the "its a 4-door so it can't be a charger". The Charger I most remember was ~71 model which was a giant V shaped 2-door body that was larger (and I assume heavier) than many/most of the sedans on the road today. Besides - I need a 4-door for use as backup family vehicle (would love to go 3 cars at some point but not yet). And for similar practical family purposes the autostick instead of a manual is okay by me.

    I do think it is still a cool car to have that much engine in a reasonably priced family sedan.

    However, what I do think are legimate reasons that it might not be a charger:

    1) Styling - The "Brand Marketers" apparently won out big time on this car's design. Instead of carrying retro cues from the old cars on the front grill - it gets the current Dodge (truck?) type of grill. The back end is even worse - instead of something like a retro "C H A R G E R" across the back you get the tiny corporate sized logo "Dodge" on left and "Charger" or "Charger R/T" on right. If you look quick you are not sure if it says Charger or Stratus ....... - They definitely styled it to keep with their current modern brand cues, not to have retro touches (that the new Mustang does so well).

    2) Victim of the 300 success. Car was made to be too much of a clone of the Chrysler 300 with slightly different sheet metal for a few less dollars. My main complaints on this are around emphasis on family sedan features over sport sedan features. The option sheet is even almost identical - probably a good practical move but lost the ability to make this target a sportier market/crowd looking for something a little smaller, lighter,...

    3) Due to #2 above, the Charger keeps the 300's long 120 inch wheel base, its high seat position, its high door sills, its 18" but only 60 series all season tires, and of course its ~4000 weight. All of which fight against it as capability to be a sports sedan.

    4) Lack of emphasis on performance in marketing the vehicle. Yes, despite the 340HP/390lb engine, 5 speed auto,... the R/T model still came with the 60 series family tires. Worse, the R/T model with the R/T package (which seemed almost a hidden option, mostly the Daytona package version of it with the orange or yellow color schemes were empasized - their web site options package didn't even list the R/T package for may weeks) you still only get 235/55/18 that are nominally high performance ( all season) tires. Where is the true high performance summer tire package with 40 or 45 series tires. This is best they can do with the R/T package on the R/T model?
    Yes, the SRT-8 does address this but for large add. $$ and 20" wheels/tires does not seem optimal for performance given unsprung weight versus just wider 18" tires (looks over perf.).

    Overall, I can see how the styling and similarity to the 300 sedan would turn off the charger loyalists and I think those are much more legitamate beefs than that it has 4 doors. For my own decision process, I was willing to overlook the corporate styling for bang for the buck but it was the lack of performance sedan thinking beyond giving it the Hemi engine that turned me off. I owned a Coronet 318 as a kid and previously owned one of the 300M's that I liked as well. So I still can't believe that with a 340hp hemi, rear wheel drive, 5 speed autostick package they couldn't turn out what I was looking for in a reasonably priced performance sedan.

    It now sounds like the Challenger may do what needed to be done to make a smaller, lighter, more performance oriented package out of what seems like a great engine/drive train package (and fix the retro styling I hope as well).

    [In the meantime, I ended up with the '05 Infiniti G35 w/234/45/WR18's, Limited slip, high perf. suspension, .....
    that I love and is great. - Sorry Dodge, you had plenty of chances...]
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    Good points I think.

    I do wonder though how long "retro" styling is going to cut it in the marketplace. After all, the generation that's going to be buying such cars in the not-too-distant future will have no meaningful memories of the "classics"...so the styling may not have any special appeal to them.

    With the current Mustang for instance, there's some concern that though it does look quite good, the styling is designed to basically go after the babyboom generation one final time, right as they retire and still have disposable income.

    A good choice by Ford to be sure, but the price is that the up-and-coming demographic is finding the styling "old". This has led to speculation that if Ford keeps the retro styling too long, it's going to alienate potential buyers. I dunno, but it's something to consider.
  • uh60luh60l Member Posts: 1
    First, it's obvious that some of the people responding to this particular discussion didn't read the title. Yes, were here to bash the new charger, or at least grieve for the death of the 1999 concept charger r/t, that didn't get built.

    Let's talk about that concept. It had a roofline that looked like a 69. It had windows shaped similar to a 69. It had door indents like a 68/69. I would have definately bought one, even though it had, that's right, four doors. It didn't look like it had four doors, it looked hot!

    Now, as for some other arguments I've heard in favor of the new charger. I own and drive daily, a 69 dodge charger. It has a trunk that is huge, bigger than most modern cars. I have a wife and 2 kids, and my 10 and 12 year olds don't mind folding the seat forward to get in the back. They call it dad's race car.

    The boys at Dodge admitted publicly that the name charger was used for marketing only, and that they had no intention of building a "retro muscle car". They went to the public did tests where different car names were said, and people had to identify them as dodge or not. Charger was the most recognized car name that people knew was a dodge. Gee, I wonder why? The Dukes of Hazzard maybe, or a movie called Bullit?

    The dodge boys also admitted that they had no intentionof running ads with the new and old versions togeather, because they didn't want any confusion or to tick original mopar fans like me off. Also, they aknowledged that putting a 60's era charger next to one of these might cause dis-interest in the new ones and more interest in the old ones, and that doesn't sell cars. It's all about money.

    The other big argument by pro-new charger guys and dodge, is that two door coupes just don't sell. Of course that was before they saw the sales figures for the 05 mustang. I honestly think that if it had come out in 2004, the charger might have come out as a 2 door with a more retro look.

    And thus we have the challenger, which dodge appears to be doing the right way. I can only hope that successful sales of the challenger and drop offs of this new charger will cause a restyling of the charger into something more like what most of us anti-new charger guys relaly want, a modern charger that still IS a muscle car.

    I've seen a total of four new chargers in my town. Two were obviously on test drives, and when the drivers saw my car they stared and stared, their toungues hanging out, drooling. The third pulled into 7/11, and again paid more attention to my car than he did his own. The fourth had the balls to park his car next to mine at the movie theater, being really cool, or so he thought. Funny thing is, I walked out, up to my car got in, and only then noticed the hemi badge, and turning to look saw it was a "new charger". It just blended into the parking lot like every other "modern" car. It didn't stick, or jump out at me or anyone else.

    I recently read that charger sales aren't as high as 300 sales, and that dodge was surprised by this.

    Now, the car itself doesn't deserve any bashing, because, for what it is, it isn't a bad car. I even told dodge when I emailed them the 5th or 6th time that I'd buy one if they called it something else, like polara or dart or something. So, in essence were not bashing the car, but the designers, marketers, and execs at dodge/ddc, for giving it the charger name.

    P.S.: My wife was going to buy a new mustang till she saw the challenger concept, now she wants one of those. I'm so proud I've converted her to mopar!
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    What works for the 300, doesn't translate well as a so-called Charger. The 300 look better, and correct. The Charger is a modified 300 which looks like a modified job done by customs shop. I am sure they tried there best to transform a 300 into a sporty muscle car, but it is in reality impossible to do. For sporty, I'd take the 300M any day, but it is long gone now.

    I owned a '65 Stang many years ago, as in '70's, and have mixed feelings about the latest rendition. It looks good, though it is almost too retro. A car can start to look like a replica car if you get too caught up in drawing the same old lines. The interior and some of the exterior lines I feel were actually just fine in the previous Mustang. A new stronger chassis and all, is welcomed, but I would trade the retro gauges, and such for a more modern inline 6 and better gas mileage in both the 6 and 8s. I hope Chrysler makes a cool modern day looking Challenger, with sporty lines, the 3.5 V6 engine as standard, and does not go too retro. The Challenger is a beauty. Just restore the old ones, and make something with styling hints of days gone bye, yet modern. Same goes for the Camaro. The Charger I don't really get at all. And for goodness sake, drop the door window sills on cars. New car are getting army tank looking. Are these armored cars?

    :shades: Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Perhaps a "Jessica Simpson" edition with a HUD photo of her in her Daisy's :P

    However a Orange General Lee charger would be sharp.

    Rocky
  • fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,097
    There's a little article on the upcoming Dodge Challenger concept in the February Car & Driver. I think some will really like it...
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    on the Challenger, and I like it, except for the price. :surprise: I'd love something like that, as I've always had a thing for midsized/large-ish coupes, and it looks like it's even a hardtop with roll-down rear windows! But I dunno if I'd be ready to pay $35K+ for it.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    If they priced the Challenger at $21K, with the 250HP V6, it would be a reasonable deal. Or add $6K for a Hemi and extras pkg, and it's a deal. Anything above that, I may consider it some day used, but not as a new car, as it is less than a bargain. Same goes for the Camaro. The car should come base without ABS and other stuff they throw in. If a person wants all the additional ABS, cruise, and such, let them pay say $2K as an add-on package.

    $21K base
    $23K with extras pkg.
    $27K Hemi+extras pkg.

    I don't need GPS, as I am never lost. I just take more interesting side trips enroute to my destinations.

    Loren
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    I think Loren's hit it on the nose: the price point will be the key...it'll have to be pretty similar to that of the Mustang for the Challenger to sell in any volume.

    I think Ford's gotten it right in terms of the price...the Mustang is priced pretty much exactly where a car like that should be. GM and DC should hopefully take note...I want real pony car wars again! :)
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    This is what a slick car looks like http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060108/ap_on_re_us/auto_show_muscle_cars
    Looks awesome! The only danger, if any, is that it becomes too retro, or replica car like in design. Perhaps I should not care, as I would be getting a modern day version of the original, without having to buy the original and update all the parts to make it perform to modern day standards. The car has the potential to blow away the Stang in looks. If they can get a modern day front to not look like a big fish lip sticking out front, like on the Stang, but more like the photo of the prototype in the article, it is one giant leap ahead of Ford. And the overall look, as back when, is so smooth. The Camaro and Challenger, both to my eyes was always a bit smoother and more modern for its time. The Mustang did however do what it was suppose to do with the design - looks more muscular.
    So it is not wrong, just different in nature. I love all three.

    The Charger use to be slick looking in the same time period of around 1970, so now you have a bit of a dilemma. You have now reminded people, once again, as to how wrong the look of the Charger is when you get the Challenger correct. Maybe the Charger should have been called the 300S instead? Sure looks like a modified 300. And the modified look doesn't fully come off right IMHO.

    Loren
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    With all the news being focused on the GM Toyota battle for world sales leadership, the Ford vs. Chrysler battle has been kind of lost.

    "If Chrysler has some winners with its new products, it could pass Ford in North American production as soon as 12 months from now," Sean McAlinden, chief economist for the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, said Sunday.


    http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e4e3
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    I Think your right,I do own a Charger and I think its the best in it's class.I recently read the Mopar muscle mag. and it said the Charger had more pre orders than the hot 300 did.Thanks for your comments.I do see more mopars on the road then I ever saw. :)
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    The Charger SRT-8 and 300 SRT-8 are on my short list. The SRT-8 Charger looks bad to the bone !!!!

    Rocky

    P.S. Especially for a 27 yr. old with 2 kids and a wife ;)
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    Thanks for the kind words on the Charger.I think its one of the coolest cars around.The SRT8 really gets your attention when you see it.I hope you make the right choice.
    I don't think you'll be disappointed.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    The only gripe I have about the car is Gadgets and the same goes for the 300 which I like also. If Voice Recognition, AC seats, DVD surround sound were options I'd rush out and buy one. Right now I am going to probably wait and see what the Pontiac G8 becomes. Especially since I get a GM employee discount on them. ;)

    But yes it's a very cool car and isn't going to be off my test drive list when I decide to buy. Good Job Dodge !!!!

    Rocky
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Well I find the Charger an awkward looking version of the 300, and not a sporty car. First of all what works in styling for the 300, when hacked to make the Charger comes off all wrong. Secondly, the weight of the car is to high on the scale. Needs to lose 600#s or so.
    -Loren
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    First of all the Charger is by far more sport looking then the 300.The 300 is more luxury.As for weight the 70'cuda
    with a Hemi weighed 3800lbs.That was a small car so to say
    that these care weight to much is wrong.My Charger has the V6 and has no problem moving this car.What do you drive?I bet I'll to you its not as good as the Charger.Thats why they call it opinion,but I backed mine with facts.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    that the Charger is about the size of an Intrepid, but RWD and beefed up, I don't think it's really all that heavy. What, around 3700-3800 lb for the V-6 and around 4,000 for the Hemi?

    And if it's any consolation, the last time Chrysler made a car on a wheelbase of 120" or more, was 1978, and it weighed around 4600-5000 lb! :shades:

    Now if a Charger handled really sloppily, accelerated like an automatic Mini with 4 people on board and the a/c running, or was a guzzler, then I'd be tempted to gripe about its weight. But despite that weight, it's rated something like 19/27 with the V-6, does 0-60 in around 8-9 seconds, and is a great handler, I'd say the additional weight is almost a non-issue.

    There's an old cliche about light weight being its own reward, but it can also be a punishment. Notice that some of the more highly regarded small cars, like the Mini and the BMW 3-series, are porkers for their size classes. A Mini weighs about what a Corolla or Civic does, and a 3-series weighs in at around what midsized cars do, there must be something to the added weight.
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    First of all the Charger is by far more sport looking then the 300.The 300 is more luxury.As for weight the 70'cuda
    with a Hemi weighed 3800lbs.That was a small car so to say
    that these care weight to much is wrong.My Charger has the V6 and has no problem moving this car.What do you drive?I bet I'll to you its not as good as the Charger.Thats why they call it opinion,but I backed mine with facts.

    -end quote-
    I am not sure I would classify the difference in looks between the 300 and Charger as "sport", but then-again as a pure definition of the term, yes indeed. The 300 as sort of a Bentley classic style, does hit the mark.

    I don't think 1970 performance standards is what Chrysler needs to achieve in 2006. Less weight equals better cornering, best gas mileage, and faster zero to sixty. Seems your 0-60 is no better, or worse than a '96 Miata I owned last year. And that is no powerhouse of an engine.
    The 3.5V6 is a good choice for powering the Chrysler, and should be the base engine in the 300. The gas mileage is good, and if they made a smaller and lighter Challenger, and Charger car, the 0-60 would go down a second, while MPG would go up a couple. Tires last longer and the cornering improves. Those are facts.

    Would I consider a 300 - yes. Should it be lighter, and not so aggressive with the stability control to allow faster cornering - yes. For the weight, the 3.5V6 mileage is pretty good. The 5 star crash rating is a plus. Another RWD car with good crash test scores is the Mustang. And yeah, I know it is 3500#, and a bit porky too.

    Not sure why you are curious as to what I am driving, but here is the answer: PT Cruiser.

    Loren
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    that the new Challenger will weigh much less than the Charger. After all, it's based on the same platform. All they really did was take 4 inches out of the wheelbase, all of it in the back seat. So you still have a car on a 116" wheelbase. FWIW, that's still a longer wheelbase than most other cars out there, even the bigger ones.

    And it's not any narrower, as far as I know. When you take a big car and make a smaller derivative of it, usually you don't save that much weight. Unless you do so much restructuring and redesigning that you practically end up with a new car, anyway.

    As for the 1970 Challenger, it was an awesome performer in its day. Now sure, none of the panty-waists at Consumer Reports would have liked it. Heck, if they had their way back then all cars would have been small, 4 or 6-cyl pillared sedans that would do 0-60 in about 20 seconds!

    Probably the biggest detriment to the Challenger's performance was the wheels, tires, and transmissions of the day. They most likely rode on bias ply tires, and even if you could get radials, they'd be crap compared to the radials of today. The wheels were probably 15x6, which is compact terrritory today, or Buick Century at best. And the trannies were limited in their number of gears. The automatic only had three speeds, and I think the manual was a 4-speed. So you could gear them for a great 0-60/quarter mile time, or a high top speed, but not both.

    I've had a few old Mopars from the 70's, and these were just generic full-sized cars. But swapping the standard wheels for some 15x7 road wheels, or better yet, the copcar wheels with the wider offset, really improved handling a lot. And nowadays I'm sure they're using something wider than 7" for high performance jobs like the Hemi Charger or Challenger.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    I however have a feeling Loren in a yr. you will gobble up a new 2007 CTS ;)

    Rocky
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Read somewhere, the Challenger was going to be like 78 in. wide. Toooo wide I think. At least for our narrow streets in my town. That is like driving a Crown Vic. I must say the car looks awsome, and will be something to really consider when it comes out. Should sell well. Choices - choices, with a Camaro and Challenger, or even old faithful Mustang. Three interesting choices.

    The 300 is a pretty good value too!
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Well we have a few years to have to worry about the Challenger and Camaro. Loren do you like the Buick Enclave, or are SUV's aren't your thing ????

    Rocky
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    does seem a bit wide for the Challenger, considering the 300 and Charger upon which they're based are only around 74" wide.

    Honestly, unless you're trying to make a car where you can get 3-across seating, I don't think there's any need for a car to be 78" wide! And I don't think 5-passenger seating is top priority for cars like the Challenger!
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    SUV is an SUV is an..... Best deal is the Mazda Tribute. Saw one with a stick last year for $15K -- brand new! Now that is the way to buy an SUV, if you want one.

    Meanwhile back on the subject.... The Charger is not so much an abuse of the legacy due to it being a four door sedan, but rather it being an awkward looking version of a luxury car. A modified 300, which is suppose to be Bentley, or Rolls Royce like, not a sports sedan of American breed. Sorry, but it is just odd. May even be a value in power and performance, while being a good enough car to own. But it looks like a high school project to turn a formal, big heavy, Euro looking model into a Charger. The great Houdini could not do that trick.

    Loren
  • m1miatam1miata Member Posts: 4,551
    Yeah, I wish they would shrink some. 74" is my limit. The Stang is getting fatter with age. Yeah, I know I am too. Anyway, sporty cars should be lighter and smaller. I wish Chrysler would make a smaller Challenger, with a V6, and based on a new platform. A new, RWD platform for the smaller sedan, coupe and Challenger. Make them all around 3,000#, like the Altima, with the 250HP V6, and 5 or 6sp. automatics, or stick shifts as a delete price item.
    The size should be around the BMW3 sized auto. With sedan or coupe at $20K, and 21K for a Challenger. All starter, without most extras, like anti-lock brakes, and fancy stereos and such. Have upgrade package for say $3K.

    Loren
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    SUV is an SUV is an..... Best deal is the Mazda Tribute. Saw one with a stick last year for $15K -- brand new! Now that is the way to buy an SUV, if you want one.

    Better watch it that Mazda Tribute is UAW made. :P

    Rocky
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    80's;The Charger was an Omni based coupe the Omni. It was called the Omni 024 when it was introduced in '79, Omni was dropped in '81, Charger was added in 82, and the 024 was dropped in 83. The base engine was either a 1.7L 70hp volkswagen, or a 1.6L 62hp Peugoet. Dodges own 2.2L was available in 84, 96, 110, 146 and 174 horsepower versions through its lifespan that ended in 1987.

    70s-80s; Dodge revived the Ramcharger name for its full-size SUV in 1973, which recieved only minor updates before it was cancelled almost 2 decades later.

    60s-70s; Dodge introduces a aerodynamic coupe based on the B-body format in 1966. It is considered the replacement for the larger (but also B-bodied) Ramcharger, but the name is shortened to just Charger. The styling is updated in ’68, 71, and 75, and is then renamed Magnum when the 75 design is freshened with square headlights.

    Early 60’s; Dodge introduces its own track ready superstock under the name Ramcharger in 1962. It is basically a light weight, race ready version of the full-sized Polara/Monaco. It inspires such songs as “Shut your down” and “The little old lady from Pasadena”. It carries over to the Coronet in ’65 before being replaced by the Charger in ’66.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    of a 60's RamCharger. At least not a production car. Was that a racecar or something? I know they used the name Cross Ram on some of their big block wedges with the offset dual quad setup.

    Oh, here's a dumb question, but in the song "Shut down", was the lyric "Super Stock Dodge is starting out in low" or "Super Stock Dart's starting out in low"? I swear I hear the second.

    But then I also hear "'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy" in that Jimi Hendrix song! :P
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    The Ramcharger was a performance package on the Polara, in the sence that the SS was on the Impala. Although it was intended as a race car, it could be licenced for the street.

    The lyric is "Super Stock Dodge", in fact it say "two cool shorts" which were altered wheelbase cars. And although I've seen "short" Coronets and Impalas I cant image a "short" Vette.

    image
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    OH MY GAWD !!!!! :confuse:

    Rocky
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    Okay, it may not be a looker, but in stock form it was faster in the 1/4 mile than a FI Vette of the same year. Yes, I know that in the song the Vette won, but it also said they were modified.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    I think those '62 Dodges are kinda cool, in a vulgar sort of way! And while the GTO might get credit for kicking off the musclecar phrase, these '62 shrunken Dodges and Plymouths fit that formula to a Tee. They were passed off as downsized full-sized cars, but were about 15 years too early for that to work. They were really more mid-sized. And they were designed, from the get-go, to accommodate any Mopar engine on up to the 413 and 426 big-blocks of the time (the 440 didn't come out until around 1965 or 1966).
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    I think your right on the second verse seeing that '62dodge
    is a Dart.The 440 came out in '66 along with the 426 Hemi.In '67 the high performance was born with the GTX.I also checked out the specs for the new Challenger and its not small just looks that way.it has 197.8 length which is 1in. longer than the 300.it is 78.6wide which is 4inches wider than the Charger.116in.wheelbase which is 4inches
    shorter then the Charger.I couldn't find the weight.With a
    Hemi 6speed std.0-60 in 4.5secs.1/4 mile in 13.top speed is 174.Its fast.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    for the original '70-74 Challenger, and it looks like they were about 76" wide. In comparison, the '70+ Camaro and the "fat" '71-73 Mustangs were 74" wide.

    Interesting, considering back then the Mustang and Camaro were based on compact cars, while the Challenger and Barracuda were based on midsized cars, that the Challenger didn't end up that much fatter.

    These cars were pretty much rendered obsolete by the likes of the Demon/Duster, which were only around 72" wide, had smallblock V-8's that would run with the big boys (and often embarrass them), were more maneuverable, and roomier inside.

    Ford never really offered anything truly high-performance on the Maverick platform, although you could get them with a 302 V-8. Earlier versions of the Nova were incredibly hot, with engines like the hopped-up 327, 396, and 402. However, by 1971 the top engine was a 270 hp (gross, about 200 net) 350, and it only went downhill from there. Plus, a Nova was heavier than a Demon/Duster or Maverick, so it needed more cubes to move.

    I wonder if one reason they made the Charger concept so wide is to keep the proportioning? The original was 76" wide and about 192" long. So, since the new one is 198" long, perhaps it would have looked awkward if they kept it at the 74" width of the 300/Charger? Believe it or not, it might have actually made the car look bigger. One styling trick to make a car look bigger is actually to make it narrower. Sounds silly, but it tricks the eye into thinking the car is longer than it actually is. Until something else parks next to it to give you a true perspective of its real size.
  • ubbermotorubbermotor Member Posts: 307
    These cars were pretty much rendered obsolete by the likes of the Demon/Duster

    Actually, the Duster was introduced in '70, the same year as a Challenger. And although the Challenger was a larger version of the also new Barracuda, the Duster was a continuation of the previous Barracuda (the 70 340 Duster used 69 Barracuda trim and interior instead of the Valiant parts used on lesser Dusters).
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Yeah, I know. I just picked 1971 as an example year, because by then the "Fat" Mustangs were on the market, to go along with the bigger Camaro/Firebird and the Challenger/Barracuda. Although even though the 1970 Mustang was smaller, I'm guessing it was still a bit of a porker?

    I had '68 Barracuda door panels in my '68 Dart for awhile. Almost a perfect fit, except that the rear panels were a bit too short. The Barracuda was on a 3-inch shorter wheelbase than my Dart hardtop, and all of that 3 inches was taken out of the back seat area. The seatback hid most of the gap created by the shorter rear interior panels, but you could still see it.
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    Can you tell me how to put a picture like you did here?I'm
    trying to tell someone on another forum how to do this.
    Thanks for your help.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,655
    Nowadays it's real easy to post a pic on Edmunds. Basically, just copy the url of the picture you want to show. Then, click on the little box that says "Img" in the row above the emoticons underneath the text box. You'll get the start of the coding to post an image, and the "Img" button will now show up in red. At that point, paste in your url, and then click the "Img" button again.

    Then, when you're finished typing and post the message, the picture will show up.

    Now some websites such as Angelfire have blocking software, so if you try to post a pic from there, the image won't show up. And sometimes if you post a pic from a website that you have to log into to see, it won't show up either.
  • john_324john_324 Member Posts: 974
    So now that it's gettting more common on the road, any new views on the new Charger?

    I find I really prefer it to the 300...the Charger's retro-inspired design seems more uniquely Chrysler compared with the (to my eyes anyway) look of the 300.

    True though that from the side, the new Charger seems way too long...I guess I'm still seeing the original coupe in my mind. It's the retro c-pillar that does it I think.
  • moparman4moparman4 Member Posts: 1
    LOL you are confused My 74 handles as well as my stealth{for it's age} and makes A bit more hp than 160 it Will and HAS eaten the lunch of a few late modle magnums and * cough cough Chargers* also get 19 mpg with a 360 the 400 73/73 were dogs agreed~
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    Thanks for the info on putting up a picture on the forums.I
    not the best when it comes to computers.
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,014
    Group investigates outsourcing production of subcompact to be sold in America and overseas.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060505/AUTO01/605050386/- 1148

    Rocky
  • xtecxtec Member Posts: 354
    I read somewhere that they are going to have a new engine for the Challeger to keep up with the 07 Mustang GT500.It
    will be a 6.8Hemi with 505 HP.Now that sounds nice.
This discussion has been closed.