CHALLENGE to Jairus, Harry and whoever

[whale392]

Laugh or make fun all you want Casey.........we had a 1977 Chrysler Cordoba (same car as the Charger your ad shows) that originally had the Lean-Burn 400 in it. Being the car was already set up for the Big Block (as the 400 is a 'B' engine), we took a 1969&1/2 440+6 and mated it to a 1970 727 Hemi auto tranny (and yes, the HEMI and 440+6 autos were different from all other 727s in the fact of a wider first/reverse band/drum and heavier clutchpacks) and dropped it into the Cordoba. Talk about suprising people. Oh, and Casey....thanks for proving my point...........it is a 2 DOOR!

[1320wayne]

With respects to those opinions voiced above........even in its' darker days of styling, the Charger was NOT a 4 door. It never was and should never have been. Personal opinion here, but the heads at Chrysler revamping the Charger nameplate to stick it on that hidious design was just a ploy to market and sell that heap. Now, as Harry stated and someone obviously missed his point, the new Charger had better be a better car for 40 years of design developement (oops...guess someone missed that when they want to compare the new Charger Hemi to the old......Harry agrees the new Charger is a better automoblie). Styling is subjective, and while the new Charger has its own style, that is fine. But a 4 door Charger? While we're at it, let's go and make the Camaro or the Mustang a 4 door as well. See the point? Retro styling doesn't need to be a key in developement, but at least keep it in the same type of car. Even the FOX Mustang (1979-93), while a departure style-wise from the original, was true to the original....small, light, easy power, cheap to buy and modify, and it was a 2 door (even in its hatch configuration it was still a 2 door). Chrysler seems to have missed that small (but oh-so-obvious) clue with its' Charger (and before you go jumping me and calling me out, be forwarned that I am and always was/will be a Chrysler B-Body lover and owner. I own 2 1965 Dodge Coronet500s, and dad owns 6 mid-60s B-Bodies....two of which are original HEMI cars. I came home from the hospital in a HEMI car).

Just to clarify, I didn't miss Harry's point. I simply disagreed with them. There's a difference.

[Harry P.]

Just to clarify, I didn't miss Harry's point. I simply disagreed with them. There's a difference.

Which part exactly did you disagree with?

[1320wayne]

Which part exactly did you disagree with?

You made a statement about the new Charger had better have improved performance numbers over the 68 version insinuating that it doesn't. That is what I was disagreeing with. If that wasn't your point then I simply misunderstood. Granted, there really is no comparison between the two and if I had my choice between owning either or there would be no question. But I feel that the new Charger could outperform a 68 model in so many ways. And that is simply my opinion as I am no expert on the matter.

[Harry P.]

You made a statement about the new Charger had better have improved performance numbers over the 68 version insinuating that it doesn't. That is what I was disagreeing with. If that wasn't your point then I simply misunderstood. Granted, there really is no comparison between the two and if I had my choice between owning either or there would be no question. But I feel that the new Charger could outperform a 68 model in so many ways. And that is simply my opinion as I am no expert on the matter.

My point was that a new Charger had better outperform a 40 year old car, or else the engineers have been asleep for a long time.

But this thread isn't about performance, it's about styling... and the 40 year old Charger has it all over the new, ahem... "Charger"...

[Junkman]

My point was that a new Charger had better outperform a 40 year old car, or else the engineers have been asleep for a long time.

I strongly disagree.

Firstly, a modern car does not necessarily have to outperform a 40 year old car just because it is a newer car. The world has changed, so have traffic conditions and the outlook of most people generally on life. Heck, if I'd drive today like I did only 20 years ago, I'd be a poor man behind bars quicker than I drove back then.

Secondly, many modern cars will outperform the majority of 68-70 Chargers, save for the few which are equipped with the monster engines. And even they would only have the edge in straight line performance. Actually, I easily outran a 383-powered Charger in Spa-Francorchamps with a bone stock 78 Caprice Classic.

Thirdly, I find, it is much more fun to drive a slow car fast, than it is to drive a fast car fast.

BTT:

IMHO trying to restyle the new Charger is futile, you can't polish a turd. The show car looks nice. It isn't to my taste, but at least it looks like it was styled by people who cared. Would it have been produced though, I bet it would be festooned with all the usual gimmicks you find in most modern cars and which make me believe the car makers have completely lost the concept of what the car was initially invented for. The latter is the reason why I refuse to drive modern cars. Add to this some of this ridiculous retro styling nonsense, and I will as certainly as the 'amen' in church walk away, no matter how good the car underneath may be.

As for the 68-70 Charger, I never understood the hype. Again imho, they were cheap cars, had no class, the build quality was even more atrocious than the handling, the styling comparatively bland compared with the stunningly beautiful looks of their predecessors, and when I see one in real life, I find it oddly soulless. Had Chrysler not seen fit to sell a miniscule proportion of the production run with those King-Kong engines, they would have gone under as lemons in automotive history. Chrysler knew how to build fast and stylish cars. They called them 'Imperial'. I owned eleven of them, so you can't accuse me of not being a Mopar man. Still, if I would be in the market for a ca. 1970 American muscle car, it would certainly not be a Charger. In fact, it wouldn't be a Mopar at all. I'd go for a 442.

However, my bottom line is, why can't Chrysler Corp today just do, what it did in 1957? Launch cars which look fresh, new, eye-pleasing, and send the others running for their drawing bo... errr CAD-programs? You know why? Because it can't.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Junkman

[Harry P.]

I strongly disagree. Firstly, a modern car does not necessarily have to outperform a 40 year old car just because it is a newer car.

If a new car can't out-perform its 40-year old namesake, there is something seriously wrong! If 40+ years of automotive technology can't out-do technology from 1970, the engineers should all be fired!

Handling, braking, cornering, ride comfort, fuel economy... the new Charger outperforms the old one in all these areas... as it should! But as far as styling, the new Charger can't hold a candle to the '68-'69, which IMO was one of the best looking cars Chrysler ever made. But of course, styling is subjective. I'm sure there are people out there that think the new Charger is a good looking car!

[Junkman]

If 40+ years of automotive technology can't out-do technology from 1970, the engineers should all be fired!

I strongly do agree. Looking at, or even driving modern cars, I think they should be fired on a general principle. Then again, the 1968-70 Charger was nowhere near the epitome of engineering even in its day.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Junkman

[Tony T]

Personally, the 4-door Charger should have continued the Intrepid name (the rear styling is almost a carry-over from the last Intrepid), and a 2-door variant should have had the Charger name. I've driven the police-package 6-cyl equipped Chargers at work, and they are a nice enough car (the police didn't want them, so they went out to the city fleet, and we got some of them). Terrible in deep snow. Still, a capable car, peppy enough for traffic. Some visibility issues compared to the other car we use, the Impala. Smallish back seat, which is why the police didn't want them-no place to put feet when the divider is installed. Would I buy one? Probably not. Challenger is the car the Charger should have been, a 2-door retro muscle car.

[Casey]

Laugh or make fun all you want Casey

I never said I don't like late B-bodies, I've just always thought that ad was funny, seeing as Tom Selleck became famous for driving a slightly more performance oriented car.

As for the 2-door versus 4-door Charger debate, there is no right answer, but the fact remains that the Charger is and has been a 4-door since it was re-introduced, still sells well, and is going on its second generation, so Chrysler must know what it's doing.

[whale392]

Part of the reason it does sell well IS the Charger name, Casey. Would the car have sold nearly as well if they had named it Intrepid? My guess, no. Chrysler marketing knew what it was doing when they tapped into the collective memories associated with the Charger nameplate, as the car had become a sort-of cult-inspiring car (thanks in part to shows like 'Dukes' and its' close link to NASCAR and HEMI). Yes, I do find it humerous that good-ol Burt would be pushing the 'Charger' for Dodge as his role as Bandit had him in Ponchos (which were poor performers compared to todays cars). But just like the Charger of that ad, the Poncho was still true to its' styling roots......it was a two-door. That is the point we are all trying to make against the current Charger. A 4 door Charger? C'mon. Call it a FuryIII or a Monoco, as they were 4-door. No? Why not? Oh yeah, Monoco doesn't have the associated 'Good memories' feel or image to it that 'Charger' does. Chrysler did the same thing (in a matter of sorts) that Harley Davidson is still doing. Harley, who once shunned the dirtbag bad-boy social misfit image and rider in favor of a clean-cut 'factory' guy. Harley sales tanked (yes, it also might have had something to do with shoddy build quality and the AMF years). So what did their marketing do....hey, let's tap into that rebel 'bad boy' image and see what happens. Sales boomed and now every Chromosexual RUB on his Garbage-barge thinks he's an outlaw 'biker' because he's ridin' him a Harley. Give me a break Mr.Lawyer, Doctor, and Dentist. A real outlaw biker would turn your butthole into a headband before you could even pull your 'Official Harley' leathers off to give youself more 'swinging room.

See what I am trying to say about branding and image? The modern Charger is a fair car, but being 4 door SHOULD NOT carry the nameplate.

Edited June 13, 2010 by whale392

[Junkman]

Because the new garbage sucks!

Word!

[Jon Cole]

WoW! Passions are strong on this subject! I would say that the Charger name doesn't belong on a two-door car, yet... it has been pointed out why it was done. It's marketing.

What's done is done. The more-door Charger does sell, second generation (oops! I mean "restyle!") is on the way. Used to be a two-door, now it's a four door. Not the first time that has happened... just ask any fan of the Ford Thunderbird nameplate.

I think a bigger question would be, "Will the new Chrysler-Fiat survive?"

Now, what was this topic thread about?

[Junkman]

I think a bigger question would be, "Will the new Chrysler-Fiat survive?"

Without a doubt. If not, it'll be bailed out courtesy of your and my money.