Sign In Join 



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

What is this discussion about? Dodge Challenger, Coupe


Messages Page 17 of 53
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
53
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#156 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [funkymunky] by m382
Feb 10, 2006 (2:47 pm)
Reply

Replying to: funkymunky (Feb 10, 2006 12:50 pm)

I agree with your whole point. I love cars in general, american or foreign. I LOVE the Magnum, and its cylinder deactivation technology that it and the 300C possess.
 
Two more names you left out of your flop list are the Impala and the Monte Carlo.
 
**What's wrong with Miami Vice**
#157 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [m382] by funkymunky
Feb 10, 2006 (3:00 pm)
Reply

Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 2:47 pm)

Nothing's wrong with "Miami Vice." 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.
#158 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [funkymunky] by m382
Feb 10, 2006 (3:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: funkymunky (Feb 10, 2006 3:00 pm)

No I get you completely. With that said, they just did what their following wanted to do. They set out to create a present day 70's muscle car and did. I'll never say it's original but it's nonetheless. Point is, any company will go in whatever direction sales are in. Hollywood for instance has been seeing huge rewards for simply re-creating old comic books into movies i.e X-Men, Spiderman, The Hulk, King Kong....etc. Sometimes the best way to maximize profit is to minimize the possibility of failure...simply create what the people want instead of suprising them with something they might love. This whole topic is a no win situation...if Dodge comes up with a BRAND NEW design...they lose the die hards that simply wanted their 70's car, and if they create the throwback they lose the modern lovers.
#159 of 522
Re: Challenger does look excellent [brysok6] by gearhead4
Feb 10, 2006 (6:40 pm)
Reply

Replying to: brysok6 (Feb 09, 2006 5:13 pm)

brysok6,
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!
#160 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [m382] by bmk32
Feb 10, 2006 (6:59 pm)
Reply

Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 2:47 pm)

"Two more names you left out of your flop list are the Impala and the Monte Carlo."
 
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.
#161 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [bmk32] by m382
Feb 10, 2006 (7:21 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 6:59 pm)

What I was implying as I'm sure was the person whose posting I responded to was that the Monte Carlo and the Impala were seen as "failures" or "failed" efforts for those car enthusiasts that wanted the nastalgia of those cars brought forth today...so there's no mis-statement there. If Chevy canned the Corvette, and five years from now made it into a hatchback that happened to sell reasonably would you call that a success?....success, much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Another thing, you compared the Impala's sales to the Charger and 300...this version Impala's been in production for how many years now?..and the 300 and Charger have been on sale for what, a year? Let's not argue which are the better cars, simply because a car sells more doesn't make it "better", that simply means it was either flat out cheaper or priced more reasonably. If simple sales were the sole indication of a car being better, the Toyota Camry and the Ford Explorer would be the two greatest cars ever invented.
#162 of 522
Re: Challenger does look excellent [gearhead4] by bmk32
Feb 10, 2006 (7:25 pm)
Reply

Replying to: gearhead4 (Feb 10, 2006 6:40 pm)

I agree with you gearhead4, but I can clearly see brysok6's point too.
 
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.
#163 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [m382] by bmk32
Feb 10, 2006 (7:34 pm)
Reply

Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 7:21 pm)

The Impala is an all new car for '06, so it's been in production for roughly 6-7 months. I was referring to January 2006 sales as recorded by Ward's Auto World.
 
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.
#164 of 522
Re: Reverting to the 50s [bmk32] by m382
Feb 10, 2006 (9:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 7:34 pm)

The car I was reffering to and the car you're talking about are two different cars, I happen to like the new Impala. It isn't the past Impala but with it's new design its respectable. The version before it was garbage and that was the version I was reffering to. I think the new Impala is nice for what it is and meant for, but I would never own one.
#165 of 522
Re: Challenger does look excellent [bmk32] by m382
Feb 10, 2006 (9:18 pm)
Reply

Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm)

This whole argument is getting old..."Camaro vs. Challenger...which is better?" This can all be summed up in four words "to each his own." Neither is better or worse, they either simply appeal to you or they don't. I love how people are sitting here arguing so heavily about which is better or worse as if we've sat in them and have driven them. THEY'RE CONCEPTS. They aren't even finalized much less out yet. This whole argument on which is "better" is really just a tale of "beauty in the eye of the beholder"...neither is "better."

Messages Page 17 of 53
1
...
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
...
53
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement