kerib@ptd.net wrote:
: So my Charger 2.2 SCCA car is not a Charger? How about teh Shelby Charger GLH
: which ran high 14 secodn quarter miles (faster than most versions of the
: original Charger) is not a Charger. I think we are being a bit nit-picky
: here. As long as it is performance oriented it the Charger name is valid.
Its starting to look like the folks on both sides of the Charger
controversy are just going to have to agree to disagree. :-) (I
know I'm quickly tiring of the subject.) ;-) IMHO, performance alone
does not qualify a vehicle for a certain name. (See my other posts
on the subject for a more in-depth explanation.)
: Heck this Charger desrves the name more than the 180 hp smog versions of the
: late 70's. What about Magnum? The 1979 Dodge Mangum was a large 2-door coupe,
: replaced the Charger and looked like a Cordoba. The current Magnum does not
: look like that.
All true, but IMHO, past sins do not excuse current abuses.
: What about the Hemi. It is not a 426? What a bout the 426
: Hemi. It is differnt from the earlier 392 Hemi? The list goes on and on.
Actually, this is a great example of what I am talking about in
regards to continuity. The early 50s saw the introduction of a motor
which Chrysler called the HEMI (the "whale" motor). It was named HEMI
because of the hemispherical combustion chambers. In 1964, Chrysler
came out with another motor, which they also called the HEMI (the
"elephant" motor). Although it was a completely different block, much
larger displacement, etc. the most important feature of the motor - the
hemispeherical combustion chamber - was retained. Both motors had
hemispherical combustion chambers, both motors were called HEMI.
What current day DaimlerChrysler has done with the Charger would be
equivalent to Chrysler in 1992 naming their new MPFI 5.2L V8 "HEMI"
instead of "Magnum". Yes, you can make lots of comparisons - both motors
had 8 cylinders, both were made by Chrysler, both were pushrod design,
both used motor oil for lubrication (you can get as crazy with this
as you like), however you would still not be able to escape the
unavoidable fact that the new motor did not have hemispherical
combustion chambers. People would scream for blood and ask "why on
earth are they calling this motor a HEMI?". It would make no sense,
women and children would spontaneously combust from the ludicrousness of
it all. This is very similar to what they have done with the Charger.
Yes, there are some comparisons that can be made, but the ones that count,
like the number of doors, for example, or distinctive styling cues from
the classic vehicle are simply not there. (Speaking of the latest HEMI
engine, there are many purists who do not consider it a "HEMI" because
the combustion chamber is not truly hemispherical. Now me personally, I
can probably give them a pass on that since its awfully close.)
Anyway, the Charger appears to be a fine car, but any attempt to
try to connect it to the classic vehicle from which it has inherited
its name is a stretch, and cannot succeed without first travelling to
an alternate dimension, consuming vast quantities of illicit substances,
or both. ;-)
--
-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 : Fri Jul 01 2005 - 09:48:06 EDT