Even back in the 68-70 glory days the Charger was not trying to compete with
the Mustang and it certainly isn't now. The Crossfire is much more of a direct
comparison to the Mustang and in it's SRT-6 iteration is more than a match
performance wise.
The Charger's aimed at the Mercury Montego, Ford 500, Impala SS, Grand Prix GTP
market and at least for me the only choice there is the Charger or Grand Prix.
If you want rear wheel drive then the only choice is the Charger.
DC certainly knows how to do retro, just look at the PT Cruiser, Prowler and
Viper. From everything I have read from DC the resurection of that name was to
use the performance heritage which they have done in spades with the hemi
engine availability and the up coming SRT-8 version.
It's to bad that the market is so small for a 2dr rwd v8 car that DC can't make
a business case for creating another one but you certainly can't blame them for
using a name that has marketing appeal on a bread and butter vehicle.
Dave Clement
99 SLT+ CC 4x4
In article <001901c4f778$2f066160$4f76690c@bill>, billday@comwares.net ("Bill
Day") writes:
>
>
> 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