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
Coupes & Convertibles Dodge Challenger 2008 Dodge Challenger
522 messages, Last post on Apr 28, 2009 at 10:23 PM
You are in the Dodge Challenger Forum. Your Host is claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
I have a real love/hate relationship with new American cars. Probably has something to do with my loathing toward the current administration in D.C. Because we seem to be reverting back to the '50s in this country. Yes, these retro-cars are more like the 70s, and I actually like them. But as one of the early responders here pointed out, these cars are big and noisy and heavy and gas-guzzling, so while nearly all of our foreign-policy decisions seem to revolve around oil (Iraq, Venezuela, Iran), we continue to build these large and arrogant and oh-so-very-American rides that have a big f-U attitude to them. That said, I do think many of them are cool. I like the Challenger, although I think it's too much like the Lambo Miura concept and the new Mustang in that it's nearly identical (looking) to the original, rather than a modern take. Yes, the engines are doubtlessly more efficient and the handling's much better, but it would be nice if they weren't simply so retro and a little more original. They're a bit too SAFE in their styling. Same with the Mini and the new Beetle, all of which I like very much, but they're pretty conservative. No risks, like Hollywood, which continues to simply do remakes of old TV shows (Dukes of Hazzard, Miami Vice, and they're even contemplating Mr. Ed). Of course they're all better than the Malibu, which is a disgrace to its name. And to completely defeat my entire argument, I LOVE the Magnum. Big and obnoxious the way it should be, although it's a V8 that at least TRIES to be responsible by cutting back to 4 cylinders when it needs to. Also, the Magnum is a station wagon, which in my book is 1,000 times better than an SUV. It's qualified as a passenger car, so it needs to meet fuel and safety standards that "light-truck" SUVs can ignore. Also, it's lower so it's easier to see around and more maneuverable. Brand-new but with cool styling and MAD performance.
|
|
|
Replying to: funkymunky (Feb 10, 2006 12:50 pm) Two more names you left out of your flop list are the Impala and the Monte Carlo. **What's wrong with Miami Vice** 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 2:47 pm)  I'm psyched about it, although it's more a point that Hollywood's remaking movies rather than coming up with new ideas. The Challenger is a modern (but not particularly new) Challenger. Why not just come up with something totally new like, that's right, the Magnum? That's my point.
|
|
|
Replying to: funkymunky (Feb 10, 2006 3:00 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: brysok6 (Feb 09, 2006 5:13 pm) I agree that the Camaro concept is nice looking and resenbles the '69 with same fresh touches. But I think your missing the point when you say that say that DCx can do better than the Challenger that you can see at the Chicago Auto Show today! The car looks familiar, but the dimensions are all different. And it promises to have modern technology. It doesn't get any better than that!!! Somebody at DCX thought the 2006 Charger was the right way to go. I don't think so. The styling cues are not retro. This Dodge looks more like a Mercedes than a Charger. Yeah it has round headlights. Yeah, the rear side glass has a shape familiar to the original 66 and 67 Charger, but that Charger was so homely that the body was completely redesigned for 1968. The 68 through 70 models are the true classic Chargers. The 71 through 74 models were really nice, too. Compared the these beauties, the 06 Charger looks like a brick. So much for "innovative" styling. When I get my kids through college, the Challenger will be top on my list, but I won't ignore the Camaro if that goes into production -especially if GM makes it look more like the original '69. And a word to GM and Chrysler - I'll pu my money where my mouth is!
|
|
|
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 2:47 pm) I'm puzzled at this mis-statement, and I wouldn't call these cars flops, as they are both selling well, especially the Impala, it's consistently outselling the Charger and 300 combined. And just yesterday, Consumer Reports gave both of these Chevy's a "Recommended Buy", as they have outstanding quality and reliability. GM does produce good product, but they get zero credit for their efforts. I do wish these Chevy's were rear drive, especially now that you can get the small block V-8 in both. Maybe the next generation Chevy's will return to rear drive.
|
|
|
Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 6:59 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: gearhead4 (Feb 10, 2006 6:40 pm) I wish DCX hadn't done such a carbon copy clone to the '70 Challenger. I would have appreciated some forward styling to go along with a design that paid it's respect to the original. Remember the concept Charger of 5 years ago ?, that's what I'm talking about, it was undeniably a Charger, yet it was fully modern in every way, it took Dodge forward, not backwards. Where is that innovative design on the Challenger ? I agree with this guy brysok, fast forward to '09, and the sheet metal styling on Challenger will be 39 years old. For some, that's 100% what they will want, for others, it's not. Whatever you like, I'm sure there are enough mature Mopar fans out there to keep Challenger alive for at least 4 years, just like the original. Score one for Dodge. On the other hand, a lot of us think GM leapt ahead in the design of the Camaro Concept. It's undeniably a Camaro, but it's not a carbon copy of a '69 Camaro, and we wouldn't want it to be either. The Camaro has forward styling themes that will still be fresh when this car debuts in 3 years. It sets a new direction for Chevy that hopefully will find it's way into other cars too, such as the Impala, Monte Carlo and Malibu. The Camaro Concept breaks new ground for GM and for the pony car market, if GM does this right and builds it without screwing it up ! I can't call this Camaro Concept car "retro" in the same vein as a Mini Cooper, New Beetle, Ram pick-up, or the Challenger. For me, it simply does not fit into that mold. The Camaro already has 35 years of muscle car history under it's belt, so it doesn't need a pure retro design to succeed. I agree with you, it's a no brainer that both cars will be fully modern underneath and on the inside, and they will both help to create a revival of a modern day muscle car era. But for me the Camaro Concept is a quantum leap forward in pony car design, better than both the icon's Mustang and Challenger. The Camaro Concept is positioned to compete better in the year 2009 than the Challenger is. And we all know the Mustang will be freshened by then too ! If the Challenger were on the street right now, today, it's a grand slam home run. Three more years from now without any advances to the design, it's a single, double at best.
|
|
|
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 7:21 pm) I can agree that an enthusiast would be disappointed that these cars do not have a rear drive platform, but I'd hardly refer to them as a failed effort.
|
|
|
Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 7:34 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles Dodge Challenger 2008 Dodge Challenger
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Dodge Challenger
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
