I find all this hopla about the new Charger very interesting and quite amusing.
Dodge has used the Charger name on a whole raft of very different vehicles. The
66-67 Charger was a Coronet with a fastback roof line (not my cup of tee at
all), 68-70 it bacame it's own body style and carried the performance banner
for Dodge (my favorite is 70), 71-73 it again shared it's basic sheet metal
with the Plymouth Satellite and Dodge Sebring (nice looking cars but I would
rather have an e-body),in 74-77 the car became Dodge's answer to the Monte
Carlo and shared it's look with the Chrysler Cordoba (wouldn't want it even if
it was given to me), it disappeared for awhile and in 83/84 Dodge took the Omni
024 and slapped sheet metal over the rear quarter windows and added a spoiler
to the front and called it a Charger (I purchased a Daytona instead).
Both the 300 and Magnum look better in the flesh than they do in pictures so I
will reserve my comments on the Charger until I see it in the flesh. DC has
been hugely sucessful reserecting names from the past as can be attested to
with the 300, Magnum and hemi. The car/motor these names are attached to have
no styling or design link to the names from the past so why would anyone expect
the Charger to. I am quite sure the Charger will be just as successful for
Dodge.
Dave Clement
99 SLT+ CC 4x4
In article <cru5lf$gm9$1@bent.twistedbits.net>, josh@omg-stfu.com ("Josh
Battles") writes:
>
>
> "andy levy" <andy-dml@levyclan.us> wrote in message
> >
> > Real Charger pics: http://www.chryslerweblog.com/index.php?p=63
>
>
> That looks like a bastardized Magnum/300 and I don't like it. The front end
> is ugly and overall it doesn't share a single body cue with any vehicle that
> has worn the Charger nameplate. Chrysler screwed up, again.
>
> So far nobody but Ford has gotten the retro look done the right way. The
> GTO is rather lackluster, and the new C6 would have been better off staying
> a C5 on the outside. Who knows what's to become of the Camaro... I'm not
> going to hold my breath on that one either. Some of the sketches I've seen
> look *really* nice, but in the end it'll probably be some boring front wheel
> drive 6-cylinder.
>
> --
> - Josh
> Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
> Above Statement Not True ^^^^^
> www.omg-stfu.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:18:31 EST