It's about time

[Greg Myers]

[Jantrix]

Seriously or you yanking our collective chains?

[XJ6]

I am not impressed with the Car....Looks like a "Donk"......seems Ol'e Dodge is forgetting the true nature of the Beast "Muscle Car"...However they did keep the Gas filler Cap Design....

Not Impressed but however still like it though....After all it is a new car...Cheers

[Monty]

While I'm 100% in favor of Dodge going back to a 2-door Charger, I won't GAD about this car until I know they've finally gotten rid of that Checker Marathon front end treatment they've been running since the new, 4-door Checker...sorry, Charger came out. .

[george 53]

Hoekey "Full length" tailights an door dents do NOT make a Charger. This sorry excuse for a "Musclecar" is just that, SORRY! Still think it's just too clunky lookin!

[Eshaver]

George , give credit to Chrysler for doing the Charger as a tudor again . I agree with Futrabat on the "Hokey " front grille, makes everything look cheap , including their trucks . I'm undecided as to the Gimicky wall ta wall tail lights . The indents on the doors actually add some rigidity to an otherwise flimsy body part .............. Ed Shaver

[disabled modeler]

I think it looks better than the 4door and like the wall to wall taillights.....now to see if they make a supercharged version?

[george 53]

ED, I just noticed it WAS a TWO door!!!! Praise God for small favors!!! But it's still ugly from the front. You'd think if they were goin that far with it, they'd make it more "Charger-ish" an they would come up with a nicer grille treatment. Yes, it DOES make it look like one of their trucks!!! Jeeeze, a two door. Still clunky lookin, but NOW it's MORE like a REAL Charger!!!!!

[Junkman]

Why was everything nicer and better in the good old days?

[TurboKitty]

Too bad it's just a student's photoshop creation, I kinda like it.

http://www.amcarguide.com/concept/speculation-2012-dodge-charger-rt-coupe/

[Harry P.]

There are a bazillion 2-door Charger renderings floating around out there... everyone and their dog has done one by now. I did these a few years ago, based on the current, uh... "Charger" they have out now. A 2-door version using as much existing car as possible:

And while we're at it, a new Cougar based on the existing Mustang platform:

[Eshaver]

Harry, probably either one would be a decent seller . Ed Shaver

[george 53]

At least your design is more like what I was thinkin,Harry. Dam, it's JUST a rendering? man, watta drag! Shoulda know the clowns at Chrysler are about as sharp as their electrical systems!!!!!

[MrObsessive]

Why was everything nicer and better in the good old days?

Because you didn't have the Safety Nazis back then dictating what a car should and shouldn't have-------instead of letting the market dictate.

[Jantrix]

Too bad it's just a student's photoshop creation, I kinda like it.http://www.amcarguid...arger-rt-coupe/

Yeah, I figured. The gas cap looked a little too cut/paste to be real.

everyone and their dog has done one by now.

Nope. My dog hasn't yet mastered Photoshop. Still working on teaching her CAD.

[58 Impala]

I think that looks pretty good, I'd have one in my garage....with a Hemi of course.

[GrandpaMcGurk]

I grew up with Dodge, Plymouth and Chrysler (my Dad had a Dodge dealership when Studebaker took a dive). Looks like my old truck is going to remain my daily driver for a while..........even if Chrysler or rather Fiat (don't they own more than 50% now?) built the 2 door Charger with a Hemi it.... still isn't a Hemi. The new versions of the Hemi are probably way more efficient, reliable and faster but Hemi is s'posed to mean hemispherical heads.....right? The new version (as far as I know) is called a Hemi simply because Chrysler owns the name.

Besides...there is no way I'm gonna pay more for a car than it cost me to have my first house built.

[Eshaver]

At least your design is more like what I was thinkin,Harry. Dam, it's JUST a rendering? man, watta drag! Shoulda know the clowns at Chrysler are about as sharp as their electrical systems!!!!!

George , did you buy muh old Chrysler van ? Now you know why I won't buy any more Chrysler products ! Ed Shaver

[Jon Cole]

What Mark said! U want a 2-door Charger? By a Challenger. That is what Mother Mopar calls them.

The front grille on the Charger is no worse than other cars, and is in fact a styling theme of their line. Not each model, but enough to see that trait. So it doesn't have the 1968 nose. It's not 1968.

Progress... you can run with it, or get run over by it.

[Harry P.]

Progress... you can run with it, or get run over by it.

If you look up "progress" you'll find that it means movement toward a goal or higher stage, advancement.

You can see progress in a car's engineering, but there's no "progress" in a car's styling (unless you want to consider the technical aspect-coefficient of drag). But as far as pure "looks" go, styling is subjective and not measurable by "progress."

Is a 1930's era Mercedes 540K a beautiful car? You bet it is. The fact that Mercedes styling has changed drastically since then doesn't mean it's shown "progress" over the years... it's just different now. Same with the Charger or any car. There can't be "progress" in something that's judged aesthetically... only "change." And the change is not always for the better. IMO the '68-'69 Charger is waaaaaaaay better looking than the current one. In fact I think it's one of the better looking cars ever.

[XJ6]

Why was everything nicer and better in the good old days?

Very Good Question....I Most Agree With You....Cheers..

[Harry P.]

I won't argue that a 540K isn't a beautiful car. It's also a hideously space-inefficient car.

A 540K wasn't designed to be space-efficient. It was designed to make a statement... to tell the world that the owner had made it in the world. It was conspicuous consumption to the nth degree (albeit with typically excellent Mercedes engineering under the skin). A 540K was all about elegance, speed and class. Practicality was never even on the designer's radar.

Likewise, today there is a market for cars that are stylish and "make a statement." Not a huge market, of course... but the market for the 540K was never huge either. Cars like that have always been "niche" cars, meant to appeal to a certain segment of the buying public. There's no reason that cars like that can't be sales successes today (of course, "success" being a far smaller number sold than say, a Camry or Accord).

The Mustang and Camaro are selling fairly well, the Challenger not quite as well (not sure why... maybe the fact that Ford and GM are just so much bigger than Chrysler and more people tend to shop and/or consider a Ford or GM car than they do a Chrysler). Nobody is going to mistake a Mustang or a Camaro for a "practical" family car, and they aren't represented as such. They make no pretense of being space efficient, fuel efficient or practical. They are all about style (and to a lesser degree, performance). Sure, Camrys and Accords are the big volume sellers, but there's also a market for cars that are more about style and "making a statement" than about trunk space and how many cup holders it has.

[sjordan2]

Wildly flamboyant and expensive cars like the Mercedes 540K obviously exist in another world where practicality and space efficiency really don't apply and I 'm sure everyone knows that. But it's interesting to note that Mercedes has always been aware of the need for storage space. For example, some SSK models from the late 20s had special doors for tool kits in the cowling, and the 1928-33 710 SS offered optional running boards containing large storage areas behind doors on each side. In the 540K below, you'll see a storage door in the fender in front of the spare tire (of course, this was a one-off hunting car for an Indian maharaja, and included spare fuel tanks on each running board). Plus they offered custom-fitted luggage to make the most of storage space and large trunks. except for models with rumble seats.

Edited August 29, 2011 by sjordan2

[Harry P.]

The market (or a fraction of it) that the new Charger is after is a fragment of the Camrycord segment, so it has to offer most of the practicality, and therefore compromise style, that the class does just to get consideration.

And I think that's where Chrysler made its mistake regarding the new Charger. They wanted to both resurrect the old Charger mystique yet also compete in the "family sedan" category, a sales segment the original Charger never competed in, or even pretended to. The new Charger was probably offered as a 4-door to try and siphon off a few Camry, Accord or Impala market segment buyers while at the same time trying to play off the old muscle car mystique... so instead of a new Charger that had the sleek, sexy styling of the really cool concept that Chrysler showed us, we got a bloated, boxy sedan that doesn't say "Charger"... at least not to me.

By trying to be two things at once, the new Charger fails at being either one. It's neither a "heritage" muscle car or a family sedan... it's sort of a weird mishmash of both. I guess sale-wise it's doing ok (police sales help, I suppose)... but I think they missed the mark with the car.

[Harry P.]

All I'm saying is that the new "Charger" should have been a 2-door coupe. Not necessarily a retro design, but a coupe. Chrysler already had a 4-door sedan.