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
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 14, 2005 6:45 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: andys120 (Jan 14, 2005 6:17 am) PF Flyer Host Pickups & News & Views Message Boards |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 14, 2005 6:45 am) 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> |
|
|
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. |
|
| Well, I work for Ford now, so I'm pretty much resigned to the buttons, but I miss the stalk. | |
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
