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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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!
|
|
|
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. |
|
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!) |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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! |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mirth (Jan 12, 2005 11:03 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Daimler's abuse of the Dodge Charger legacy.
