aside from enthusiasts, majority of mainstream american public think the
chargers were fugly, and most just liked them because they were one of the
baddest cars on the road. people want DC to come up with something more
retro? i dont think many people today are going to want to buy a car with
such a long front. the older concept designs that everyone was raving about
didnt look anything like a charger either. in fact they looked more like a
camaro to me, so i dont see what everyone is complaining about. hauling
serious butt is the true heritage of the charger in my opinion, so as long
as it does that then its ok in my book. and having four doors on it just
makes it easier to stuff some little brats in the back and seriously haul
thier butts around town.
----- Original Message -----
From: <david.clement@verizon.net>
To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: DML: OT: Dodge Charger
>
> 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