Love the history there.. but If they want to compete, especially with Ford
and the New Mustang, they are going to have to do better than call it a
charger and stick 4 doors on it. I will give ford some credit, the new
mustang at least has little retro look to, along the lines of the Mach1s'.
This charger(though the name denouces fear in automotive enthusiasts) simply
does nothing for me seeing that second door back. Possibly if they were
really into the project they might have considered a suicide rear that was
released when the front door is opened, no handle and a better take off.
>From my vantage point of the pictures it looks like about center of the rear
door windows they could have started dropping the rear weindows there ato
the deck heighth and elongated the trunk a little to give it more of a
charger appeal...
Just my .02 worth
Bill Day
AIM BadManD73
'95 CC Flame Red 3.9Magnum 3.55LSD & 30x9.50x15's
A rich Man isn't always wealthy, he just has all the love he ever wanted and
could give.
----- Original Message -----
From: <david.clement@verizon.net>
To: <dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 1:06 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/05
>
>
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.9 - Release Date: 1/6/05
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2005 - 00:18:31 EST