Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.
659 messages, Last post on Jun 21, 2006 at 2:03 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
| that Chrysler tried to put just a hint of '68-70 Charger in the 2nd-gen Intrepid. It's noticeable mainly in the rear window, which is massive, and has just the hint of flying buttress. And the taillights have just a hint of '69-70 (the '68's had a 2-light treatment that the current Acura RSX recalls a bit) | |
|
...is nothing compared to what happened to the Challenger. They turned it into a Mitsubishi! I hate the 1975 Charger for more personal reasons. I had a real (more profanity than 3 Martin Scorcese movies with Joe Pesci) teacher who bought a new 1975 Charger. This guy's looks and attitude were all that I hated about the '70s. I wish I could teleport myself back in time to key this jerk's ride! |
|
|
I just hope we'll get a 2-door version. I know I'm out of step with the buying public, but I like coupes, if only for the air of impracticality around them...there's just something about a 2-door that says "no grocery-getting, no soccer practice...just performance." Even if it doesn't quite deliver (e.g. the 1980s Chargers), it has the look at least. |
|
|
even if it doesn't have the performance, I still think it should have the style. I've always preferred coupes myself, mainly because the coupes I've owned were always sleeker than their sedan counterparts. But nowadays most cars are so aerodynamic, that going to a 2-door design might not really do much. For example, while an early 80's Charger looked a lot sportier than an Omni, and a Dodge Mirada made a Diplomat look like the brick that it was, I don't think a 2-door Intrepid would have been much of an improvement. With the Charger going for a blockier look though, a coupe version might be nicer. |
|
| ...the original Charger was based on the 1967 Coronet - a rather blocky car itself. | |
|
|
|
I have a potential solution to problem some people have with using the storied Charger name on a new vehicle. My solution - don't use it. Instead, Chrysler should resurrect the Challenger name. Here's why: 1. As revealed in the previous few posts people get very (overly?) emotional about the Charger name. There is a perception that a true Charger must look like a 1969 Charger and sport a big cube hemi or 440 six pack. 2. The Challenger, to my eyes, was a much better looking car. It had sporty, clean lines on the outside and a purposeful, business-like interior. 3. The vehicle that last used the Charger name left a very bad taste in the buying public's mouth. At least the Mitsubishi-based Challenger was a decent car. Just a thought. |
|
|
I would personally love that, as I always liked the Challengers better myself. "Vanishing Point" alone makes it a cool idea in my book... |
|
|
but in this case, I think the Charger nameplate actually fits the bill a bit better here. The Challenger was actually a purpose built "pony-car" contender, along the lines of the Mustang, Camaro, Firebird, Cougar, and Javelin. Only difference is, for its time, it was based on the intermediate platform, whereas those others were based on cars that were compact at the time. The Charger in its original form was more a cross of a musclecar and a personal luxury coupe, and as a result had just as much functionality as its more mundane Coronet/Satellite counterparts. IMO at least, a musclecar is a high-performance car that can still double as a family car (because most of them were just high performance versions of existing compact, intermediate, or full-sized platforms), whereas a "pony-car" (a term coined by the Ford Mustang) is more purpose-built, stressing style and performance over utility. So, for example, a Camaro would give up a lot of utility over a Chevy II/Nova, but a Chevy Nova SS would not. IMO, here's what Dodge should do, if they want to keep some semblance of heritage...offer the Magnum as a sedan and wagon (maybe even a blocky coupe), but then offer a Charger variant that would have a much sleeker coupe and maybe even a convertible variant. It still wouldn't be totally historically accurate, because there never was a Charger 'vert, there never was a Magnum or Charger sedan, and originally the Magnum slotted above the Charger for '78. But hey, I think it could work! |
|
|
I do like the '70-74 Challenger better than any Charger after 1970. I even like the little Mitsu Challenger/Sapporo, even if it was kind of a slur on that name! But to be fair, there were slant six Challengers, and I'm sure a 2.6 '79 Charger would give one a run for its money! My favorite though, is the '68-70 Charger. Yet, as muscular as those are, even some of those were offered with a slant six! It was rare, though. Of the roughly 90,000 Chargers built in 1969, I think only around 5,000 had the slant six. Back in '93, I was actually thinking about looking at one. I had hit a crater in the road with my Dart, and thought I had done irreparable damage to it, so I started looking for another car. One other candidate I was thinking of was a gorgeous '65 Buick Electra hardtop sedan for $2500. In retrospect, I shoulda bought it! I never did get a chance to look at that slant six Charger though, because my mechanic gave me some pointers on what to do to fix my Dart myself, and I did it, for around $75 total. I know a '69 Charger slant six wouldn't have been much to brag about (I had a '69 Dart slant six, and that was enough car for that engine!), but it least it would have looked good while it was going slow! 
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
