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
on a Z28 chassis? Why???????
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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.
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.
The new one really is an ungainly design, sags and bulges in every odd location. Blech.
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.
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.
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.
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??)
The last manual Monte Carlos were the first gen.
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?
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
Host - Wagons
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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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.
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
I'm sure those doors with the huge windows didn't help much, either.
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?
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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!
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! ;-)
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.
You can get a GTO for $26,500 plus tax...pretty cool.
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
Personally, I don't really have a problem with the sedan, although the back-end is too Intrepid-like for my tastes.
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!
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.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
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!)
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.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure that Dodge will be able to hoodwink a few naïve youngsters who’ve recently received their learner’s 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.
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...
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.
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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
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!
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.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
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.
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>
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.