Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

andys120 · October 2004

would anyone bother putting the goofy fwd MC body
on a Z28 chassis? Why???????

emmanuelchoke · October 2004

It was a show car designed to gauge interest. Apparently America's reaction was similar to yours.
It was just one of over a hundred vehicles Moss Frankensteined with. Why a Monte Carlo... I couldn't guess. I can appreciate his imagination though.
I don't want to sidetrack the original topic, so back to the Charger.

grbeck · October 2004

With the current Monte Carlo, the first thing you do to improve the car is throw away the body!

The current Monte Carlo has to be one of the most awkward looking cars on the market.

Money would be better spent bringing one of the sharp 1970-72 Monte Carlos up to modern specs.

fintail · October 2004

With the retro craze hitting everywhere, they should try to remake the old Monte.

The new one really is an ungainly design, sags and bulges in every odd location. Blech.

emmanuelchoke · October 2004

The article I am refering to is from the August 1996 issue of Motor Trend. The car doesn't look half bad, metallic green, rear 335/45ZR17 tires. This is back when Earnhardt Sr. was driving a Monte Carlo race car, so that may explain some of this.

Back to topic, the most blatant abuse of the Charger name happened in the mid 80's, with the release of the FWD version. A double disgrace when Shelby allowed his name to be used.

grbeck · October 2004

Those Monte Carlos weren't ugly, just very bland - a two-door Lumina in every sense of the word.

john_324 · October 2004

I always liked those 1980s Montes Carlo...yeah, I know they sported the weakest V8 engine this side of a Mustang II, but the styling was pretty good I thought, and the car seemed like a total anachronism in the heyday of small, fwd coupes that favored turbo 4s for performance.

Current version seems bland indeed...I think the only thing keeping it going is the NASCAR faithful for whom it's as close as they can get to what their racing heroes drive.

andre1969 · October 2004

and it was a pretty nice car. My Mom bought it brand-new, and gave it to me in early 1998. It was just the base 305 V-8, no SS or anything. For the time, and for what it was, I don't think it was a bad performer. I didn't look at that 305 as being weak so much as being held back. Unless you got an SS, the 305 in midsize cars had a restricted exhaust, or something restricted, that cut horsepower down from the 165 that it had in full-sized cars and pickups. And the gearing was something really loafy, like a 2.56:1 or 2.73:1. Heck, maybe it was even a 2.41:1? I know all three of those ratios were pretty common.

It would do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, which was about on par with the competition at the time. A V-8 T-bird only had around 140-150 hp at that time, even with fuel injection. I think Ford tended to use quicker gearing, though. And the closest thing Chrysler would've had in '86 to the Monte Carlo would've been the LeBaron/600 coupe. And witha Turbo-I/automatic, they were only good for 0-60 in around 9-9.5 seconds, stock.

Chrysler really made a resurgence in this type of market in '87, with the sleek new LeBaron coupe/convertible. I think that was one of the most beautiful K-cars ever built! (and I'm not trying to damn it with faint praise!) It's kind of a shame that Dodge didn't get a version of that. For the timeframe, it wouldn't have made a bad basis for the Charger. In a way though, the Dodge Daytona filled that slot. It was smaller, but still a K-car, and used the same dashboard as the LeBaron and many of the same interior bits.

john_324 · October 2004

Did the 1980s Montes ever have a manual available? I've never seen one, but you never know...

I always liked the sytling of the LeBaron, and thought the Sebring's design was a step down. Loved those headlight covers, and have a weird soft spot in my heart for that bizarro Maserati/Chrysler TC thing (who couldn't love those porthole windows that came on the hardtop??)

driftracer · October 2004

the most powerful of the '80s Montes was the SS, with only 190 hp, I believe, which translates to 150-160 at the wheels...

The last manual Monte Carlos were the first gen.

andre1969 · October 2004

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?

fintail · October 2004

There were manual 84 Montes sold in the Mexican market, of all places

ghulet · November 2004

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?

KCRam · December 2004

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

andre1969 · December 2004

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.

driftracer · December 2004

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.

andys120 · December 2004

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.

andre1969 · December 2004

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_324 · December 2004

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.

turboshadow · December 2004

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

turboshadow · December 2004

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

andre1969 · December 2004

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.

andys120 · December 2004

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?

john_324 · December 2004

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!

andre1969 · December 2004

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! ;-)

grbeck · December 2004

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.

driftracer · December 2004

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.

gearhead4 · January 2005

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

mirth · January 2005

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.

andre1969 · January 2005

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!

stickguy · January 2005

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.

andre1969 · January 2005

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!)

stickguy · January 2005

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.

andre1969 · January 2005

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!

mirth · January 2005

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.

explorerx4 · January 2005

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.

m1miata · January 2005

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.

itsnotacharger · January 2005

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.

itsnotacharger · January 2005

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.

itsnotacharger · January 2005

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.

itsnotacharger · January 2005

As a life long MOPAR enthusiast I am infuriated at Daimler for its abortion of the Charger legacy. All of the build up, all of the hype and all of the chest pounding for nothing more than a Ford Maverick body with a Chevy S-10 grill.

The arrogant and dismissive attitudes of Daimler's management and design teams has only alienated a multitude of once loyal customers.

Chrysler had the right car in the original Charger concept, a vehicle that captured much of the appeal of the original Chargers while generating widespread praise and anticipation. Its aerodynamic lines, an aggressive stance and the integration of original Charger DNA were well conceived and well received by the public. The original 1999 Charger concept truly embraced the legacy of the Chargers of the sixties and seventies.

Instead, with the arrogance, deceit and perversions of Caligula's Rome, Daimler made the decision to pull a "Bait & Switch" routine and now we end up with this: a Maverick S-10.

Daimler, don't show me a Sirloin Steak and then bring me an Egg McMuffin.

I feel like I've been stabbed in the back by a company that I've tried to remain loyal to for decades. Well, now that loyalty is lost.

Daimler execs will now say, "But it goes 0-60 in less than 6.0 seconds."

My response to that is that any fool can put a Hemi in an Edsel. Of course, the Edsel is generally accepted as one of the ugliest vehicles to have ever darkened a driveway.

I believe that the Edsel has competition now in the New Millennium Edsel...the 2006 Dodge Charger.

Im sure that Dodge will be able to hoodwink a few naïve youngsters whove recently received their learners permits, but as for me the new Ford Mustang, which keeps many of the design cues and DNA of the original, is aesthetically more appealing.

In conclusion, this may not be the fall of the Daimler Empire, but when you consider what could have been and then consider what is, it is a major stumble.

driftracer · January 2005

lighten up.

Secondly, the Charger was a cool car, sure, but a 4,000 lb sled riding on hydraulic shocks and bias ply tires, it could be outrun by a Chevy truck and outcornered by a base-model Honda Civic.

This is the evolution DCC has chosen for the car, so either deal with it, or don't. Buy one, or really show those people in management, and DON'T buy one....problem is, they don't care...

andre1969 · January 2005

to evolve, instead of being dropped in the 80's, most likely today it would be some variant of the Neon or, at best they'd be calling the Stratus Coupe "Charger". After all, it's not too far of a jump from "Avenger" to "Charger"! And if that were the case, today we'd be griping about how Mopar sold out, and how it really wasn't a Charger because Mitsubishi was building it, and yadda yadda yadda.

But at least here we have a V-8, RWD, fairly large, sporty car bearing the Charger name. Sure, it's not the most attractive thing in the world, but with the exception of the knockout '68-70, I don't think the rest of the Chargers were overly attractive, either!

The '66-67 looks like the box that the '68 Charger came in! The '71-74 were just too fat and bloated, and was really just a 2-door Coronet. In '75 you had 2 choices. Either another 2-door Coronet, or Dodge's version of the Cordoba. From '76-78 it was just a Cordoba clone, and interestingly, while the spotlight was on the much more agressive, sporty looking Magnum for '78-79. And then the name resurfaced on the 2-door Omni 0-24 for awhile in the 80's. They could be quick with a turbo, but they were still a bit awkward to look at (although not bad for the time), but still, that wasn't what a Charger was supposed to be! Demon would've probably been about the most appropriate name here, but I doubt that Dodge would be daring enough to use that name again!

As for the Mustang, yeah, it's a very appealing car, visually. As long as you don't look TOO closely at it. Still an awful lot of cheap, hard plastic, and the rear-end has kind of a forced-together, unfinished look about it. Although to be fair, the original Mustangs were thrown together incredibily sloppily, so hey, they DID stick to heritage! Still, it's built to a price point, so you have to expect some compromises. And it's the most exciting thing in its segment in a long, long time.

I think though, if you take the Charger for what it really is, a replacement for the Intrepid, it's just fine. The style is a retro throwback that makes the Intrepid look like something out of the future (how often does that happen, that a new car actually makes what it replaced look newer?!), but as a fairly sporty, roomy family car, it should do the job well. And at least they're smart enough to start off with the 3.5 V-6 as the base engine, unlike the 300/Magnum, which start off with a tiny 2.7 engine. In a car that weighs 3700+ lb.

andys120 · January 2005

that cars often look different in the metal than in photos, whether better or worse. IMO the Magnum is a bunch better looking when you actually see it than in photos, perhaps that'll be the case w the Charger.

In any case the Charger name is sullied less by this new RWD powerhouse than by the earlier FWD OmniRizon derivative (which also managed to sully the name "Shelby").

Like the man says "lighten up" and reserve judgement until you've seen the actual product.

andre1969 · January 2005

of the 2006 Charger: http://www.autoweek.com/files/specials/2005_detroit/dodge/charger- /pages/1.htm

It's also the first page of a slide show that you can cycle through. I think the car actually looks pretty sharp from some angles.

I have mixed emotions about the interior, though...

For one thing, I miss the cruise control buttons on the steering wheel. This one has a little Mercedes Benz stalk at the top left of the steering column, which looks like it's in a really awkward place to me. IMO they might've just been better putting it on the turn signal stalk like they did backin the day!

And this is a minor nitpick, but one thing I liked about my Intrepid's dash is that it has 5 a/c ducts instead of the usual 4, but they've gone back to 4 for the Charger/Magnum/300. And it is kind of a stark interior, with no carpeting on the door panels, and mostly everything coated in plastic, soft touch or otherwise. Not even vinyl. And the silver plastic trim around the gauges and on the steering wheel isn't too convincing.

Still, overall I think it's a fairly clean, attractive dash. Sure, they could've done better. But they could also have done much worse!

andys120 · January 2005

Agreed they could've done a lot worse. In fact that dash looks spectacular compared to what's going into GM cars, even Caddys.

It also occurs to me that most of the photos we've seen are of orange or orangish red cars, I think that's an attempt to link to the Dukes of Hazzard but not neccessarily the best color for the car. I'd like to see some other colors.

Kudos to D-Chrysler for at least giving it a different roofline etc than the 300.

PF_Flyer · January 2005

Andy, that's exactly what Burke Brown was saying last night at the Charger chat (transcript should be up soo for those who couldn't attend) They try as hard as they can to take pictures that will give us the best look at the cars that they can, but seeing the car in the flesh is another matter. I agree 100% about the Magnum. I didn't think too much of the picutes, but rolling on the road gives a different perspective.

PF Flyer

Host

Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

andre1969 · January 2005

is how low-slung the Charger, Magnum, and 300C look on the road. Now just going by the specs, if you told me you were going to offer me a car that's only 197" long, but is 58" tall, on a 120 inch wheelbase, the first thing out of my mouth would be yuck. That's about the specs of a pre-gov't bumper Checker cab (although the 1977 Checker owner's manual I found online says they were 62 3/4" tall).

But to put it in perspective, that's still shorter and taller than my '89 Gran Fury, and you can't get much more upright and boxy than that! Yet somehow, these new 300's and Magnums come off appearing much sleeker and more low-slung and well-proportioned than those dimensions suggest. And usually, when you put bigger wheels on a car, it ends up making the car look smaller than it is, and you run the risk of making it look more like a Matchbox or Hotwheels toy than a real car, but again, somehow here, they managed to pull it off.

mirth · January 2005

I miss the cruise control buttons on the steering wheel. This one has a little Mercedes Benz stalk at the top left of the steering column, which looks like it's in a really awkward place to me. IMO they might've just been better putting it on the turn signal stalk like they did backin the day!

The automotive press all agree with you about the MB cruise control, but I have to say, as a former Benz owner, that I loved that stalk. <start of rant> I always found it easier to use than the buttons, and I dislike the "on/off" button everyone else uses. Is there really a problem with people accidently hitting the set button on their cruise control, and then accelerating wildy into other cars? It just seems like an additional, unecessary step, and one that doesn't prevent the problem that it's designed to prevent.</end of rant>

andre1969 · January 2005

that it did take me awhile to get used to the cruise control buttons on my Intrepid. And to make things worse, they're not lit up at night. I used to prefer the older style on the turn signal stalk, but for the most part those older styles could only set a speed, resume, and if you were lucky, accelerate. The one on my Intrepid could also coast and decelerate, so that would probably be too much to put on a stalk that also controls the turn signals, high beams, and windshield wipers/washer!

I guess my complaint about the stalk is that it just LOOKS like it's in an awkward place. But maybe, once you get used to it, it's not so bad.

After all, I used to hate the rotary knobs on the HVAC systems of modern cars because I was used to the sliders on the older GM cars. But once I got used to it, no big deal.

Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles