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
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) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: carlisimo (Oct 16, 2004 6:40 pm) 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. |
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 11, 2005 12:45 pm) 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. |
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.
|
|
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
