i'm not particularly "annoyed" with them sticking "magnum" on any engine
that they have. based on your argument, the 2.5L used in the Daks shouldn't
have been a "magnum" engine, cuz it was AMC based (if i remember correctly).
however, i think it's a just a means of providing continuity. Ford has
their Triton engines (why, i don't know... there was nothing "Tri" (meaning
three) about the original "Tritons" in the first generation - now they have
the three-valve engines) , which everybody knows are the engines in the Ford
trucks. if you want a dodge truck, you're getting a "Magnum." If you want
a chevy, you're getting a POS.
just chalk it up to marketing/gimmick/idiocy. frankly, i don't care that
the new Charger is 4-door. in my opinion, it has the power to back up the
name, which is what really matters. i think it's kinda cool that i can have
my cake and eat it too... i want to haul ass, sure! need to carry people,
and haul ass? sure! makes life a little simpler.
honestly, they should bring back another classic name (i.e.: Challenger or
Coronet) and name a shortened platform after one of those monsters. then
position it against the Mustang, and see how many people jump ship to DC.
Chrysler hasn't had a true muscle car in too long. i read car craft, and
they're always finding some old-ass, cheap GM F-Body, which they find for
next to nothing, which they build up and race and get some really
respectable numbers. it sucks that the company that i like, can't offer me
anything like that. if i want cheap, fast chrysler vehicles, i've gotta
look at FWD, or a disgusting car, which will fall apart on me in a matter of
minutes.
Gabriel A. Couriel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net]On Behalf Of
jon@dakota-truck.net
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 1:44 PM
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: DML: "Magnum" engines (was: PCM)
"Gabriel A. Couriel" <gcouriel@bellsouth.net> wrote:
: no it doesn't. the new "Magnum" engines (3.7, 4.7 & 5.7L) do, but not the
: older A-based engines.
Speaking of which, is anyone else as annoyed about that as I am?
(DC calling the 3.7, 4.7 & 5.7 "Magnum" engines.) They are an
entirely new design which have nothing in common with the older
engines. Heck, even the 5.7 is somewhat different from the 3.7 and
4.7... What possible reason could there be to keep the same
nomenclature for a completely different engine? I thought they
were going to call them "Powertech" or something along those lines.
At first (back in 2000 or so), I thought they were just trying to
use up their remaining fender badges, but now I realize they're just
being stupid. As if there isn't enough confusion in the automotive
world already. :-)
(Then again, this is the same company that is calling their latest
4 door sedan a "Charger", so at least they're being consistent. I
guess the department responsible for thinking up new names for stuff
must have jumped ship after the "merger"; maybe they went with Lutz
to GM?) ;-)
--
-Jon-
.-- Jon Steiger ---- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@jonsteiger.com --.
| 1970 Barracuda - 1990 Dakota 'vert - 1992 Ram 4x4 - 1996 Dakota |
| 1996 Intruder 1400 - 1996 Kolb FireFly - 2001 Ram QC 3500 CTD |
`------------------------------------ http://www.jonsteiger.com --'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:40:55 EDT