- #161 of 522
-
Re: Reverting to the 50s [bmk32]
by m382
-
Feb 10, 2006 (7:21 pm)
-
|
|
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)
-
|
|
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)
-
|
|
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)
-
|
|
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)
-
|
|
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."
|
- #166 of 522
-
Re: Challenger does look excellent [bmk32]
by m382
-
Feb 10, 2006 (9:27 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm)
"Three more years from now without any advances to the design, it's a single, double at best."
We can't just throw comments like this as if they're fact...or as if you personally know something that the rest of us don't. Unless your magic 8-ball told you something, you're comment is all just speculation. You are completely untitled to your opinion and I appreciate hearing it but the Challenger isn't a failure because you don't like it, or because it's retro. I can't remember a car design that appealed to absolutely everyone. There will always be critics, it will do fine.
|
- #167 of 522
-
Re: . [shipo]
by hokahe
-
Feb 11, 2006 (6:39 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: shipo (Jun 15, 2005 12:21 pm)
The car is perfict. Build it and they will come. 
|
- #168 of 522
-
Re: Challenger does look excellent [m382]
by bmk32
-
Feb 11, 2006 (6:55 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 9:27 pm)
I am merely stating my opinion on the car, I'm entitled to it, and I stand by it. And I never said the Challenger was a failure, those are your words, not mine. It's always good to have two opposing views, that's what makes life interesting. If we all liked the same thing, the world would be an awfully boring place to live in.
|
- #169 of 522
-
Re: Challenger does look excellent [m382]
by bmk32
-
Feb 11, 2006 (7:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 9:18 pm)
That's what these forums are all about talking and debating cars. I really don't read into anybody's post which car is actually better or worse, rather, I read and comprehend posts about what people like or don't like about each car. It's interesting to hear what others think. And it's fun to talk and debate with others who really like cars. If that's not what you're looking for, sorry, there's always Home & Garden as an alternative.
|
- #170 of 522
-
Re: . [hokahe]
by shipo
-
Feb 11, 2006 (7:03 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: hokahe (Feb 11, 2006 6:39 am)
For the most part I have to agree. To me at least, there are two flies in the ointment so to speak. For starters, the instrument cluster that they chose to emulate for the new car was the one from the base 1970, not the optional cluster (which I had in my car) which was geared much more toward racing, even to the point of having the tach oriented in such a way as to have the needle go vertical at exactly red-line. My second (and also very minor) gripe is that stupid pistol grip shifter, I hated it then, and I fear that I'm going to hate it in the new car as well. When I got my 1970 (in 1977), the first thing I did (even before I pulled the heads for a valve grind due to a heavily burned #5 exhaust valve) was to buy a Hurst Super Shifter and throw that OEM shifter in the trash.
Then there is the rest of the car, which as you said, is perfect. 
Best Regards,
Shipo
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Coupes & Convertibles 
