Well said dave!!
>From: david.clement@verizon.net
>Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
>To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
>Subject: Re: DML: OT: Dodge Charger Experience!
>Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:10:33 +0000 (UTC)
>
>I have a real hard time understanding why everyone is so cranked up about
>the
>Charger name on this new car. Dodge has used the Charger name on almost as
>many
>different types of vehicles as Olds has with the Cutlass name.
>
>So where do you take styling cues from? You had the Coronet with the
>Fastback
>roof slapped on in 66-67, then the 68-70 (the only years the Charger was a
>unique model with unique sheet metal) or the 71-74 Road Runner/GTX/Super
>Bee/Charger body style (same basic sheet metal that carried all the
>performance
>names from the late 60's) or maybe the personal luxury road arks from 75-78
>or
>maybe they should have taken stlying cues from the FWD Omni based econo box
>of
>the 80's (which likely sold more units than all the others combined) or
>maybe
>the Dart Swinger with the square head lights that carried the Carger name
>in
>South America or lets not forget the little compact car made in Australia
>that
>had the Charger name.
>
>There was only one constant theme with all these cars and that was they had
>2
>doors. Even though more Chargers were sold with 2.2 carb'd motors, slant
>6's
>and 318 2bbl low performance drive trains DC has focused on the performance
>heritage the Charger name and will only be offering with the 3.5l v6 (an
>impressive motor in it's own right) and the hemi motors.
>
>There is no way you can make a comparison between how Ford has used the
>Mustang
>name and DC Charger. The Mustang since it was introduced in 64 has had a
>single
>market purpose and the style continuity flowed from 64-78 when the Fox
>platform
>was introduced and the styling was completley differnt. Then again in 94
>they
>picked up styling cues from the 64-78 time from strenghtened those cues
>again
>in 00 and now we have the 05.
>
>Dave Clement
>99 SLT+ CC 4x4
>
>In article <d88gqq$507$1@bent.twistedbits.net>, superdak@gmail.com (Gary
>Hedlin) writes:
> >
> >
> > Chad Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > atleast they did a better design on the charger then they did the 05
> > > dakota!
> > >
> >
> > Umm, I disagree. If you're going to re-issue a car like the charger you
> > better give it some styling cues from it's predacessors. All dodge
> > really did was re-badge a Magnum in a nutshell. If you look at the new
> > mustang, they took cues from many of the body styles and hit the nail
> > dead on... It's deffinitly one car I wouldn't mind having!
> >
> > So really, when you look at the dakota is a truck that they had to do
> > something with. I know some people think they should have stuck with
> > the gen3, but that would have been suicide. Think about it, the gen3
> > had a 8 YEAR production run. How many other cars or trucks made that
> > long of a run and not have sales slip??? Not many! And when you look
> > at the truck market in general, ALL the trucks got bigger and they had
> > to do upscale the dakota to keep up with the trends. And they did this
> > with a lot of cues from the gen3.
> >
> > ..so which is better, something that has NO styling cues from it's
> > predacessor or something that still keeps a little of the previous
> > generation???
> >
> >
> > Gary Hedlin
> > 2005 SLT 4.7 5spd
> > 1998 Sport 3.9
> > www.garyhedlin.com
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 09:48:06 EDT