Ok, I can buy that argument, but your missing the main part of my
argument which was what was the better re-design. We can talk about
looks untill were blue in the face, but what measures a car's success is
sales...not looks.
First off, the dakota. They went bigger and bolder because that is what
the trends are in the truck market. It wasn't a ballsy or daring
concept, but a fairly concervative concept based on those trends. And
given the dakota's customer base (20yr old to 35yr old males who few
have knowledge of the dakotas heratage) It's bringing in some decent sales.
Now the Charger. You've got a totally new concept that is supposed to
appeal to a large base of customers. But the problem is you're
excluding the older generation who might actually remember a 70's
charger, and your excluding the younger generation that cant pony up the
30k sticker price. So who do you have left, not many. Your not
marketing it to the families and soccermoms which are the biggest
customer base because they dont give a flying flock about
performance....and your sure as jello not marketing it to people that
need something pretty to occupy their stall at the retirement home. So
who are you targeting??
So where do my comments come in to play about the mustang....Right here.
If your going to do a design that appeals to a large customer base,
you do what ford is doing with the mustang. They took the mustang's
heratage, added elements that would appeal to both older and younger
buyers, kept the sticker price reasonable, and BAM! You reap the rewards.
The charger takes the performance elements, puts a high sticker price on
it, and acts like it's for everyone. It's a sad job to say the least.
But for the dakota, they actually looked at the trends, looked at the
demographics, and designed it within that realm.... thats how it's
supposed to be done.
Sometimes I think people are taking this way beyond the realm of
rational discussion because they are way to fannatical about their
trucks. After all, it's a truck.... and if you dont like it dont buy
it. But dont give others greif because they liked it enough to buy it.
After all, i'm not giving you greif for still driving old vehicles. :)
Gary Hedlin
2005 SLT 4.7 5spd
1998 Sport 3.9
www.garyhedlin.com
david.clement@verizon.net wrote:
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 09:48:06 EDT