2015 Charger front end

[bill440rt]

This just popped up on Moparts.
Hell yeah.  

Sorry, but the only thing retro about that is the round lights (and the indents in the hood which are already on the current sedan...)

Who says it needs to be retro?  

Personally I think it's a styling improvement over the current large fish-mouthed cross hair grille.
Whether or not it becomes the actual 2015 model we'll just have to wait & see.

Um, lets see, two posts above mine you'll find this:

"hell yeah, indeed!!   2thumbs

link to story... http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2013/10/charger-getting-retro-modern-grille"

Note the words "charger-getting-retro-modern-grille" in the link (which is the heading of the story/article)

Thus my response concerning the lack of retro-edness......

Oh, and that picture is not going to "become the actual 2015 model", it's not an official image, it was done by a gal who posts on allpar.  She doesn't work for Chrysler.

Okayyyyyyy......

Again, who says it needs to be retro? It doesn't. I personally don't think it's retro either, but it does capture the Charger image better vs the current front end.
My thought is that it is a styling improvement over the current design.
The article and image is speculation on what the proposed redesign "might" be.

Don't like it? Don't buy one. It's that simple.  

[bull]

Losing the crosshair grille would mean that they'd have to give themselves a new identifying feature.

Losing the crosshair is the only thing that would allow them to come up with a new identifying feature. And the new identifying feature should be good looking, unique bodies that attract buyers who are sick of cookie cutter designs restricted by identifying features.

[Mike DC]

            
There's something else to remember in this discussion:  Mopar is already doing a retro musclecar - the Chally.  That car is an uncompromised retro offering designed to appeal directly to us.  


Does the entire 2015 car line need to be retro offerings?  A lot of buyers would like their new Charger to look like the '68-70 car but not everyone.  Many people are lukewarm on retro cars and some people dislike them.  And in the general sense it stinks of being too wedded to the past after a while.  

The modern Challenger is getting old enough to be ready for a restyling . . . where do they go from here?  The 2009-14 car was 100% mimicking the best lines of the classic challengers.  Now there is only one direction to go, away from the classic looks in some way or another.

[JB400]

Losing the crosshair grille would mean that they'd have to give themselves a new identifying feature.

Losing the crosshair is the only thing that would allow them to come up with a new identifying feature. And the new identifying feature should be good looking, unique bodies that attract buyers who are sick of cookie cutter designs restricted by identifying features.

Therein does create a problem though.  What new feature can you put on every car that identify them as a Dodge?  Or, is the nameplate enough?

Here's a nice example: Ford's Taurus.  Ford was having a hard time selling a midsized 4 door car after 07 because the none of the cars were called Taurus.  They tried to introduce the 500.  It flopped.  It wasn't until Ford took the same car and slapped a Taurus emblem on it that it sold.  Taurus was initially introduced in 86.

Do you really want to try the same thing with the whole brand in a sea of cookie cutter cars?  

[bull]

Regarding your first sentence, I'm saying their "identifying feature" should simply be to make attractive, unique cars. Nameplate is plenty. The 68 Charger says Dodge nowhere on it and the only Chrysler emblem was that little thing way down low on the back of the right fender. Sales went up 500% due to the styling.

[UH60L]

This just popped up on Moparts.
Hell yeah.  

Sorry, but the only thing retro about that is the round lights (and the indents in the hood which are already on the current sedan...)

Who says it needs to be retro?  

Personally I think it's a styling improvement over the current large fish-mouthed cross hair grille.
Whether or not it becomes the actual 2015 model we'll just have to wait & see.

Um, lets see, two posts above mine you'll find this:

"hell yeah, indeed!!   2thumbs

link to story... http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2013/10/charger-getting-retro-modern-grille"

Note the words "charger-getting-retro-modern-grille" in the link (which is the heading of the story/article)

Thus my response concerning the lack of retro-edness......

Oh, and that picture is not going to "become the actual 2015 model", it's not an official image, it was done by a gal who posts on allpar.  She doesn't work for Chrysler.

Okayyyyyyy......

Again, who says it needs to be retro? It doesn't. I personally don't think it's retro either, but it does capture the Charger image better vs the current front end.
My thought is that it is a styling improvement over the current design.
The article and image is speculation on what the proposed redesign "might" be.

Don't like it? Don't buy one. It's that simple.  

LOOK DUDE:

YOU ask ME why it had to be retro.

I explained to you that I was responding to the title of the story that accompanies the picture that people are referring to in this thread.  It's as simple as that.

Though I personally WOULD like it to be retro, I never said that.  I simply pointed out that what they referred to as a "retro-modern-grille" in that picture really isn't.

It would be like someone saying "that Rembrant painting is very modern looking", the painting being of an old village from long ago, me saying "it's not really modern looking to me", and you saying "why does it have to be modern looking"......    

I'm not talking about any real car, just the above picture from allpar.....

[bill440rt]

I wasn't asking anyone in particular, dude. The question was rhetorical.
Not sure why you're getting so upset over this, but if you re-read my response dude I'm agreeing with you.
It's not retro. It's an improvement over the current front end (IMHO). You don't have to like it, and no one is forcing you to.   
And I am full aware it's a rendition, not an actual car. Dude.   

[Mytur Binsdirti]

The upper half of the grille looks good......





But to me, the lower half looks like this.....

[odcics2]

 

[ws23rt]

If they are going to keep using the charger name it's long over due to make a retro.

The mustang was done well and sold well.  The same with the challenger. (chevy missed it with the camaro)

They will make something that is appealing to many but if it doesn't look like a 2nd gen charger than call it something else. To keep using the charger name when it doesn't resemble one is to dilute the value of the name. (It has already been diluted but can live again).

The grill is important but the profile coke bottle lines are the key for the right look.

When someone decided to keep using the charger name but not make the car to go with it the planet orbits went askew.  ( some call it global warming )

[472 R/T SE]

Usual suspects bantering over the new Charger.    Comical.  

Anyone seen the new generation Mustang.  Nothing retro about it.  I said it back when this retro craze started.  Retro is only good for so long since it's hard to restyle.  Words by my Mother (comptroller @ a Mopar dealership past 20 years)

I don't care for this rendition at all since from the direct front profile is no different than the Dart.  I like it on the Dart & that's where it should stay.

[Mytur Binsdirti]

Anyone seen the new generation Mustang.  Nothing retro about it. 

Damn Ford! They turned it into a 2-bagger.

[ws23rt]

Wow--Where do you find this stuff   I would love to know the story behind this one.

[Fred]

It sure hides a multitude of sins!

[Ghoste]

Hard to say, it may turn out to be the most desirable looking Mustang yet.

[Fred]

If you're willing to take that chance and undress it.........you might want to do it with the lights out. 

[ws23rt]

If you're willing to take that chance and undress it.........you might want to do it with the lights out. 

With or without consent?

[b5blue]

It's a new Mustang trying on a Batman costume for Halloween.....

[nvrbdn]

by the looksof the rear quarter, would the gas cap be on the side??  why else would you need access there?

[Daytona R/T SE]

by the looksof the rear quarter, would the gas cap be on the side??  why else would you need access there?

So that you can plug it in.

[Silver R/T]

Still looks like any other 4 door out there.

[bull]

Anyone seen the new generation Mustang.  Nothing retro about it.  I said it back when this retro craze started.  Retro is only good for so long since it's hard to restyle.  Words by my Mother (comptroller @ a Mopar dealership past 20 years)

Nothing retro about it; nothing retro about any of the Chargers from 06 on other than a few 2nd gen hints. Mopar never did a retro Charger (yet?) so the "only good for so long" theory doesn't apply. I'd be happy with a 10-year retro run. As for the Rustang it never really lost its core and retro is something that can be revisited from time to time at least. But as it stands the Charger name has been sullied to the point it's meaningless from this point forward as far as styling is concerned unless they do a total revamp.

Had they just called it a Coronet DC.com members wouldn't be having this debate, or the 75 others just like it.

[Ghoste]

So true.

[Mike DC]

  
Had they called it "Coronet" then the LX forums and the rest of the automotive press would have been up in arms about giving such a cool car such badly-aged name.  Quite a few people would probably be saying, "If Mopar wanted to give it a retro name then why in the hell didn't they call it a Charger?" 


We are not the mainstream modern car buyer.  
 
 

[Ghoste]

No but we are the captive audience and we deserve some recognition for that loyalty (some of us anyway).  Also I sincerely doubt Coronet would have received the same outrage given that it was frequently a four door family car including it last iteration.
And we have as much right to decry it as the ones ones who defend it.