Dang!!! I didn't mean to stir the pot like this, I just thought the
interactive website was cool. For the record, I like the new charger, but
would only buy an SRT-8, I like the new Dak, but only if it's a jacked 4X4
or a dropped speed demon. Not stock... stock sucks... Of course that applies
to everything ;-)
Val Garcia
Houston, Tx
2004 Ram QuadCab SLT 4.7L V8
Graphite Metallic
Aero Turbine exhaust
Fastman Throttle Body
MAC Performance Intake
----Original Message Follows----
From: Gary Hedlin <superdak@gmail.com>
Reply-To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: Re: DML: OT: Dodge Charger Experience!
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 22:27:07 -0500
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