New Charger Weight

[Brock Samson]

real chargers are HARDTOPS... with no dividing center pillar let alone extra doors,... personal luxury not family sedan,..  OK Ghost?..
fine as a sedan in the same weight class as the Lexus 450 v-8 at 4100 Lbs... take 3-400 lbs and the 2 extra doors off then you can call it "Charger".. slim that profile while your at it, cause yes your dress makes your butt look fat... 
I wont buy a Lemon at the store, though the bin may be labled "Apples". 

[TheGhost]

actually heres one for the new charger     all charger's 1966-74 all had hidaway head lights

Nope.  Hideaways were only standard on 66-70s.  In 71, they became an option, and in 73, they completely dissapeared.  Nice try though.

6pkrunner, I never agreed that this car should have been named Charger.  I'd have prefered Coronet, or Enforcer.  The name does not stop me from liking the car, though.

Silver, you and several others keep calling the car a turd, among other names, but then you say nobody is calling it a bad car?

Strat, no thanks, I have a 71 Roadrunner on my desktop.

Crazy Larry, I also have a love of the Charger.  In fact, it's one of the cars I WILL own someday.  71 383 Superbee, red with black top/interior, consol auto.  I recognize the disapointment that this car is named Charger.  But the name is the only disapointment.  Ask any of the old timers here, they should remember that in the beginning, I was also among the "I hate the 06 Charger" group, and that I changed my mind after several months, after seeing some in person, reading what it was capable of, and, finally, test driving an R/T.  You are right, though, I rather enjoy the arguements.

Ghoste, that's why you don't like Trevor Creed.  You explained nothing about why this car is a bad car, other than looks, which, your rather extreme example still standing, are subjective.  The reason you find it ugly is because you are comparing it to cars made 40 years ago, instead of cars of today.  There had yet to be made a new car that comes close to the beauty and pure style of a Mopar Muscle car, and, I doubt there ever will be.  Which is why I base my comparisons on todays cars.  When you look at every other new car on the road, the 06 suddenly doesn't seem all that ugly, does it?  And, if the performance numbers, the outstanding sales of the LX platform, and the fact that this car is the best of its class (untill you add cars which cost at least 10k more) hasn't convinced you that the car itself is a good car, then nothing will.

[Ghoste]

And... you still haven't explained why it's a good car.  If you are only comparing it to todays cars (which I don't recall you ever doing but I'm sure I just missed it), there are several which I think are better looking.  In fact, almost everything else on the road.  There are only a few models which I find more distasteful.  Really, if you tell me my opinions of style are an inconclusive argument based on their subjectivity, then it hardly leaves that door unlocked for you.
As for the sales performance of the LX, you can thank the 300 for that.  It hardly makes the other car a hero.  I think a four door family car from Dodge would have the same sales even if they had decided to keep the LH platform around a little longer and just sell a facelifted Intrepid.  The 300 is drawing them in and the folks who can't afford it, settle for the other thing.  Even if it actually were setting sales records, who cares.  Lots of people bought pet rocks, mood rings, and cabbage patch kids and I didn't feel particularly like I was missing out on any of those either.
The performance aspect has also been brought out so many times here that it seems strange to keep rehashing it.  Those who don't like the car, don't care how it performs.
Sooooooo.... again, although it may not prove to you that it's a bad car (although it does to me) it isn't liked because of that nasty little subjectivity called style.  The car has none.  You say the objective numbers overcome that, I say it doesn't.  I sold cars through most of the 80's and I can assure you, styling has a HUGE role in the sale of every car on the road.
Again, you may not be convinced it's a bad car, but until it's restyled, you will never convince me that it's a good car.  There is more to a good car than performance and I'm little surprised that you are into old cars, especially Chargers and yet, you don't seem to grasp that there is an an almost intangible quality to certain vehicles that sets them apart.  The new sedan called Charger does not have that intangible.  It is soulless, if you will.
The emperor wears no clothes!

[greenpigs]

Silver, you and several others keep calling the car a turd, among other names, but then you say nobody is calling it a bad car?

HUH?

  Sounds like you never had ridden in a quick car and the new charger was your first, so you think it is the next best thing to sliced bread.

[Crazy Larry]

It is soulless, if you will.
The emperor wears no clothes!

when they first arrived at the dealer, I sat in and started up one of the 06 "chargers".

My girlfriend's cat purred louder than that pig of a car. It may have power on the road or whatever - but at the stop light, one looks like a queer who is renting a car while his Boxer is in the shop. I'm surprised DCX didn't put a flower holder in the dash.

no thanks 

[mally69]

Nope.  Hideaways were only standard on 66-70s.  In 71, they became an option, and in 73, they completely dissapeared.  Nice try though.  (quote)

im only familair with 68-70 model chargers but anyway heres ANOTHER for the NEW charger 
im mostly for the looks all they need to do is make it look more 68-70'ish

i took my charger through town for the first time 2 days ago and i have had 3 people actually stop and look at it and 2 people tryed to stop me didnt work though but  everywhere i went people  stopped what they was doing just to look    lets see people do that for a new charger better called a stubby magnum

now if i was in a new charger i doubt anyone would actually care   theyd probably think 

this is a fun post im really getting into this     

[Crazy Larry]

You should have seen the MOpar show here last Summer - the local Dodge Dealership parked an 06 "charger" across from my '68 High Gloss Black Charger.

Everyone walked by shaking their heads as they had a visual comparison of what was once Dodge brilliance and what a failure Dodge made.
The best part was when the dealers, started the Charger up at the end of the day and drove it away - I've heard lawn mowers with louder pipes than that dumpy car. Honestly, it was a sad site to see it pull away after all the years of the 1999 Charger concept touring the country.

[defiance]

Somebody keeps saying that nobody's explained what makes the car 'so bad'.  Yet, as I read through this, I know the number of times I read something summing up to "it's UGLY" went into the double digits.  So, maybe somebody isn't reading?

The 66-74 charger is the bar they were trying to reach, right?

66-74 chargers are still sought after and highly respected 3-4 decades later, and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.  Not because of their performance (though that's a portion of it), but because of the styling, the image.  For the several months that my charger sat in my driveway without portions of its drivetrain, I was continually getting people dropping by asking if it was for sale, giving me offers on it.  So, without a functioning drivetrain, do you think they were there because of the performance?  Um, no.

If you honestly think the styling from the '06 charger will be sought after 1 decade from now - much less 3 or 4 - then this argument is doomed to go nowhere, for you are incapable of objective analysis.  It won't, it's that simple.  That is what makes it 'so bad'.  It'll be about as sought after as the little mini-car 'chargers' that were available in the 80's.  Chrysler lost touch with the 'Charger' in '75.  The concept car made us think that they were getting back in touch with the image.  The production model showed us that, even after coming so close to capturing it, in the end, the charger image was not of value to Chrysler, only the name.  THAT is what makes it 'so bad'.

In short, 425hp can't make it run fast enough to get away from that ugly stick.

[Silver R/T]

actually heres one for the new charger all charger's 1966-74 all had hidaway head lights

Ghoste, that's why you don't like Trevor Creed. You explained nothing about why this car is a bad car, other than looks, which, your rather extreme example still standing, are subjective. The reason you find it ugly is because you are comparing it to cars made 40 years ago, instead of cars of today. There had yet to be made a new car that comes close to the beauty and pure style of a Mopar Muscle car, and, I doubt there ever will be. Which is why I base my comparisons on todays cars. When you look at every other new car on the road, the 06 suddenly doesn't seem all that ugly, does it? And, if the performance numbers, the outstanding sales of the LX platform, and the fact that this car is the best of its class (untill you add cars which cost at least 10k more) hasn't convinced you that the car itself is a good car, then nothing will.

you actually think that 4 door sedan is beautiful? lol for crying out loud. I dont really like fords, but new Mustang looks like jessica simpson compared to 4 door beast

[Silver R/T]

.  There is more to a good car than performance and I'm little surprised that you are into old cars, especially Chargers and yet, you don't seem to grasp that there is an an almost intangible quality to certain vehicles that sets them apart.  The new sedan called Charger does not have that intangible.  It is soulless, if you will.
The emperor wears no clothes!

No offense, but he doesnt own a Charger. IMO you should own a 66-74 charger before you can judge how good/bad is new "charger" is

[TheGhost]

The new sedan called Charger does not have that intangible.  It is soulless, if you will.

Honestly answer this.  What new car ISN'T soulless?

In my mind, cars lost true style in the mid 70s.  With new cars, it's more of an "I'll take what I can get" in styling.  I have yet to see a new car that looks better than a similarly purposed car from the 50s, 60s, and 70s..  I judge a new cars style in comparision to other new cars, the same way I judge the performance and reliability.



Yes, silver, I can look past the doors and see the lines of the car itself.  While not what I'd call beautiful, it certainly looks more aggressive than any reasonably priced sedan currently produced, that I've seen.  But, that's my opinion, and not really applicable to this arguement.

Defiance, the cars I believe will be sought after 2-3 decades from now will be the cars you see young people driving around in/sighing over.  SRT-4s, WRXs, and other 4 cylinder and/or AWD cars performance cars.  Those are the cars that most of my generation dreams of.  Which is fine by me, because that means that classic Muscle cars should become cheaper.

Mally, WHY?  Why does it have to be more 68-70ish?  Why not more like a 3rd gen?  Why not more like a first gen.  Or better yet, why not more like a NEW car?  Oh.  Wait.  It already does look like a new car.  If I want something that looks like a 68-70 Charger, I'd buy a 68-70 Charger, not a modern day bloated knockoff, like the Mustang has become.  SOME retro cues would have been nice, but, there is such a thing as too much.  You say that nobody would care if you drove up in a new Charger.  You are correct.  But, it would also be correct to say that nobody would care if you drove up in ANY new car, unless it was an Exotic car, or something almost as expensive.

Greenpigs, you are partially correct.  The 06 R/T was the fastest car I'd driven.  But, I never went above 35 mph in it.  And, no, it's not the best thing since sliced bread, but the simple fact that it's a V-8 RWD car makes it a step in the right direction, and definatly better than an underpowered FWD V-6 car it replaces.

[Crazy Larry]

So Mr. TheGhost, do you believe the 2006 Dodge "Charger" is a better looking car than the 1999 Concept Dodge Charger?

Now, the concept Charger that Dodge held in front of our faces forever, had similarities to the 2nd Generation Charger (flip top gas cap, flared out rear fenders). So we know Dodge can make a modern day Charger.

You have to admit that this new "charger" shares nothing but the name with the historic Chargers of yesteryear.

And if your opinion is that the 06 is better looking than the concept, then I can see where your coming from - you just have (in my opinion) a flawed concept of Charger style.

You said "aggressive looking" when describing the new Charger.  A wild pig can be aggresive looking if you come across one in the woods - but when its all said and done its still a pig.

[Ghoste]

No "E" in that reply Larry.  You have to keep us separate.

Not the first or last time it will be confusing.  I've been pm'd for threads I wasn't even participating in as I'm sure TheGhost has about me.

And as to answering what new car isn't soulless, there are some IMO.  The Viper springs instantly too mind as does the Corvette.  Exotics, yes but they have that special quality that sets them apart from basic transportation.  It isn't about being a specialty car either.  A Miata is a specialty car and it seems like a cheap Japanese roadster that could have come down any assembly line anywhere in the world.  Some cars you get in and you just know that the people who built it felt more than just earning a pay.
Some cars mean something right from the drawing board and some are just attempts to gain market share (not a bad thing on it's own, obviously it's the only reason to be in business).  Some vehicles generate excitement by themselves and some attempt to do it through marketing.  I would argue the 300 has a certain amount of the intangible.  It sells well without a marketing program that draws heavily on a storied past.  People seem to be excited about it all on it's own.  It's the same platform coming down the same assembly line, why would it have the intangible?  Because it isn't an imposter.   The insincerity of the new car bragging how it's better than the old but relying on your love for the old to sell it is the shortcut to auto history footnote as far as I'm concerned.
I think there are a number of new cars which have the intangbile of which I speak.  Fewer than old ones perhaps, but that is largely because of the race to emulate Toyota IMO.  Good for business maybe, but bad for enthusiasts.  We comprise an extremely small part of the market and that was the failure of Dodge, trying to build a car for the masses that belongs to the enthusiasts.  We don't want it and they don't get it (of course, there isn't much to get really).

[mally69]

(quote)   Mally, WHY?  Why does it have to be more 68-70ish?  Why not more like a 3rd gen?  Why not more like a first gen.  Or better yet, why not more like a NEW car?  Oh.  Wait.  It already does look like a new car.  If I want something that looks like a 68-70 Charger, I'd buy a 68-70 Charger, not a modern day bloated knockoff, like the Mustang has become.  SOME retro cues would have been nice, but, there is such a thing as too much.  You say that nobody would care if you drove up in a new Charger.  You are correct.  But, it would also be correct to say that nobody would care if you drove up in ANY new car, unless it was an Exotic car, or something almost as expensive.  (quote)

simply for one reason its the most preferred of the chargers meaning more people liked that style 68-70  as for being a cheap knockoff with the new mustang i dissagree because aleast ford tryed to bring back the most preferred mustang look ,  dodge did nuthing im my opinion ( in the LEAST )to make a good comeback for the charger the charger doesnt even resemble AT ALL  of the good old days
now the challenger is a didfferent topic

[Crazy Larry]

No "E" in that reply Larry.  You have to keep us separate.

Not the first or last time it will be confusing.  I've been pm'd for threads I wasn't even participating in as I'm sure TheGhost has about me.

Just modified - you guys need to flip a coin or something - 
I forget about which one of you has the"e" but I do know that the guy without the "the" is the one that gets it. 

you've been making good points on this thread - I concur 100%!

[TheGhost]

So Mr. TheGhost, do you believe the 2006 Dodge "Charger" is a better looking car than the 1999 Concept Dodge Charger?

No.  I liked the concept better, except for the nose, which I found to be out of place with the rest of the bodylines.  But, I never really expected them to make that car when I found out it was powered by an experimental natural gas powered engine, and when Daimler came along, and nothing came of the concept after 5 years, I pretty much lost any and all hope of it becoming a production car.

You are correct, the only thing it shares with classic Chargers is the name, that is not in dispute here.

[Mike DC]

       
Man, I'm so tired of hearing anything about the 1999 concept Charger.  It wasn't THAT great looking.  I've never thought it would have been the ideal new Charger to make, it was just a little bit better than the production cars of the time. 

Gimme the new Challenger concept (or even a 2005 Mustang) over that concept Charger and day of the week.

------------------------------------------

And Chrysler never "fooled" us about the '99 Charger, either.

Daimler-Benz killed any thoughts of producing the 1999 concept Charger immediately when they bought Chrysler.  They announced it publicly.  If the rest of the Mopar hobby wanted to ignore the news & go on believing that the 2006 car was gonna look just like Chrysler's 1999 concept . . . well, it wasn't DCX's fault.

     

[Crazy Larry]

So Mr. TheGhost, do you believe the 2006 Dodge "Charger" is a better looking car than the 1999 Concept Dodge Charger?

No.  I liked the concept better, except for the nose, which I found to be out of place with the rest of the bodylines.  But, I never really expected them to make that car when I found out it was powered by an experimental natural gas powered engine, and when Daimler came along, and nothing came of the concept after 5 years, I pretty much lost any and all hope of it becoming a production car.

You are correct, the only thing it shares with classic Chargers is the name, that is not in dispute here.

OK, so lets take our agreement on the 99 concept looking better than the '06 a step further.
Would you then further say, that despite the vehicles performance, CCX could have done more to equate the new vehicle to the original Charger, based on your liking of the concept look (minus the front)?

If, yes, then you can now see why many of the Charger enthusiasts feel let down by this new Intrepid they call "Charger".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike DC - the point of the concept (which keeps getting brought up) is that there was a step forward at making a 21st century Charger. So it is evidence used in the case against the new "Charger" that DCX took a step backwards when settling on the current design.
I do agree that the new CHallenger concept is the best of them all - and that even further shows that DCX CAN make a modern day muscle car - so in essence it ticks me off even more about the current "charger" because we are given a "could of, would of, and should of" feeling.

there's nothing worse than a missed chance for greatness.

Hopefully, the new Challeneger, IF it goes into production in that design, makes up for the loss that we all feel when we see the '06 "charger"

[TheGhost]

OK, so lets take our agreement on the 99 concept looking better than the '06 a step further.
Would you then further say, that despite the vehicles performance, CCX could have done more to equate the new vehicle to the original Charger, based on your liking of the concept look (minus the front)?

They could have.  But, they didn't, and my saying that they should have done this, or should have done that, is not going to change this car.

[mally69]

 

[Mike DC]

Mike DC - the point of the concept (which keeps getting brought up) is that there was a step forward at making a 21st century Charger . . . I do agree that the new CHallenger concept is the best of them all - and that even further shows that DCX CAN make a modern day muscle car . . .

Yeah, true dat. 
The old Chrysler had a much better understanding of what we wanted.  And even if the concept Charger wasn't ideal, it represented a decent model that could have grown in the right direction over time.

-----------------------------------------------------

I think part of the problem has been the "retro" label on these designs is distorting the perception of things.


Detriot already understands that a segment of the population would like to literally buy a brand new '68-'71 musclecar from the dealership.  They've heard this complaint very loudly & often.

But what they're missing is the fact that the REST  of the population also flat-out prefers the styling of the old versions, and their preference is independent of any nostalgia.  Detriot doesn't realize that there are 15-year-olds who have never seen a 1970 Challenger in thier lives, but still like the Challenger styling better than a 1999 Dodge Avenger.  The preference for the muscle-era styling is not limited to those influenced by the original cars.

   

[Ghoste]

That's exactly it Mike.  Ugly is ugly-no matter what and a classic is a classic-no matter what.