You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Dodge Challenger 2008 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

What is this discussion about? Dodge Challenger, Coupe

Messages Page 18 of 53 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 53 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#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. Replies to this message: shipo (Feb 11, 2006 7:03 am) forgekiller1 (Mar 16, 2006 10:01 pm) m1miata (Mar 17, 2006 9:39 am) cheech3 (Mar 27, 2006 7:10 am)
#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. Replies to this message: m382 (Feb 11, 2006 7:53 pm) bmk32 (Feb 13, 2006 2:48 pm)
#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
#171 of 522 Re: Reverting to the 50s [m382] by bmk32 Feb 11, 2006 (8:57 am)
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 9:04 pm) "The version before it was garbage and that was the version I was reffering to."   That sounds like pure speculation to me.....
#172 of 522 Re: Challenger does look excellent [m382] by twain Feb 11, 2006 (12:45 pm)
Replying to: m382 (Feb 10, 2006 9:27 pm) but the Challenger isn't a failure because you don't like it, or because it's retro. ----------------------------------   I like the Challenger design. I think it captures the spirit of the old Challenger the same way the Mustang does. My concern is this...will it be too big, too heavy and too expensive? I'd much rather see a 3200lb Challenger with 300hp for 25k than a 3800lb Challenger with 400hp for 35k.
#173 of 522 Re: Challenger does look excellent [bmk32] by m382 Feb 11, 2006 (7:53 pm)
Replying to: bmk32 (Feb 11, 2006 6:55 am) "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."   Read between the lines of your own words. Do you think a car company strives to produce a car that would be the equivalent of a "single"...or "double" at best? Obviously not. In those terms, any product mereley being compared to a single or double would not be profitable business...what would you call it...a success?? It's not all in what you say, more as how you say it.   And twain yea I agree with you completely, I'd like to see a smaller car that maybe didn't have to rely on such a large displacement engine. But with that said the SRT8's both Charger an 300C weigh the same and perform amazingly. I hope they do find a way to shave off weight here and there, but I don't think it'd be the end of the world if the Challenger emulated the performance of the SRT8's. I'm just stoked about it either way. Replies to this message: bmk32 (Feb 13, 2006 2:48 pm)
#174 of 522 Why so big? by viet3 Feb 11, 2006 (8:36 pm)
I love the Charger styling too. But as a muscle car lover converted to import, why does the Charger or other retro muscle cars have to be so big? Big car needs big engine to pull dead weight, handle not as good and for sure is a gas guzzler. I can see the Charger is just another 4000 pounds iron spinning its wheel. Replies to this message: chuck1959 (Feb 12, 2006 3:03 am)
#175 of 522 Re: 2008 Challenger [qbrozen] by chuck1959 Feb 12, 2006 (3:01 am)
Replying to: qbrozen (Feb 10, 2006 11:50 am) Yes, I see that now. However, I don't see any retro cues. It doesn't look like any station wagon from the 70's that I know of. Maybe it would have been better to name it an old Dodge wagon name, which I can't think of off hand. Replies to this message: bmk32 (Feb 12, 2006 7:00 am) qbrozen (Feb 13, 2006 6:58 am)
#176 of 522 Re: Why so big? [viet3] by chuck1959 Feb 12, 2006 (3:03 am)
Replying to: viet3 (Feb 11, 2006 8:36 pm) why does the Charger or other retro muscle cars have to be so big?   Well, they were not exactally smallish cars back then either.

Messages Page 18 of 53 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ... 53 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Coupes & Convertibles Dodge Challenger 2008 Dodge Challenger