New Muscle Car Review...Chock Full Of Chargers

[70charginglizard]

Did any of you all happen to notice that a purple charger almost exactly like the one in the magazine is on e-bay right now.



http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Dodge-Charger-RT-1970-PLUM-CRAZY-440-MAGNUM-RT-CHARGER-AC-NO-68-69-HEMI_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ6199QQitemZ4583181049QQrdZ1

Could be that articles twin brother by the looks of it

[Orange_Crush]

Did anyone else find it interesteing that with 35 years of innovation and technological advancement that the new Creeder only managed to MARGINALLY outdo the Classic Charger. I mean, you'd think it could eat the '70 for lunch, and really all it did was barely beat it. It's like a 20 year old man bragging that he can run faster and jump higher than a 55 year old man, and then when it comes down to it the 55 year old is nipping at the 20 year olds heels. Who do you respect when you witness something like that?...the 55 year old!! Case closed....

With 100 fewer cubic inches in an engine that gets 26 MPG on the highway and doesn't have to be tuned up until it hits 100,000 miles.

In any case...2/10 is an asswhuppin' at the dragstrip.   at 100MPH, the old charger lost by 2 car lengths.   Nothing "Marginal" about that.  

[ChargerBill]

OC...35 years of advancement and that's the best they can do? And they still made it look like Fido's digested lunch...what's up with that? A 7 year old with a box of crayons could have designed a better looking car.

Ghost, I wouldn't be bragging too much...you obviously ignored my previous post...

BTW: Anyone else notice that the stripe on the purple Charger looks like it was put on by a 5th grader? C'mon, it's so far off from where it should be that it's pathetic. Why does it angle back so far? The stripe sides should be parrallel with the sidemarker. They even mention that they researched stripe placement...where? Over at the Corvette Forum?...LOL

[bull]

When has performance ever been the crux of the issue with the '06 vs. classic Charger anyway? There's are plenty of cars out there that can outdo a 440 Charger in the 1/4 mile but very few I would consider to be better looking. The main issue has always been one of looks and door count. Only the '06 apologists (like some of the magazine editors and a few people here) continually bring up the performance angle and surprise, surprise, 35 years of technological advances has made for certain improvements. But let's go back 35 years prior to 1966 and compare the 1931 Dodges to the '66 Charger. I'd say by that standard the supposed leaps in technology over the past three and a half decades is pretty paltry.

[BB1]

turd vs Charger hmm, Im sure who won

It would seem that in every category except looks, the so called "Turd" won.

I guess you can say that about your Dolphins too.  

[Plumcrazy]

But let's go back 35 years prior to 1966 and compare the 1931 Dodges to the '66 Charger. I'd say by that standard the supposed leaps in technology over the past three and a half decades is pretty paltry.

Good point.

[FastbackJon]

Getting back to the magazine, I checked it out at Barnes and Nobles on the rack. I might have considered buying it had it not been for the editorial idiots writing the articles. In that magazine I learned that...

1) The R/T was a Dodge performance package that ran from 1966 through 1971...

WRONG. There was no '66 R/T model.

2) The Scat Pack was a 1970 Dodge Club that featured their high performance models, and also a club that you could join.

WRONG. The scat pack was around starting in 1968.

3) One of the design changes from the '66 Charger to the '67, was that in 1967, they moved the front turn indicators out of the grille and into the fender tops.

WRONG. '67 Chargers had both grille and fender top turn indicators.

I can't stand editors that don't know their stuff and just publish garbage with incorrect information. If I can easily spot a few things wrong with just the mopar stuff, then how much other stuff am I reading that is also wrong that I can't spot?

[FastbackJon]

As for comparing a 1970 car versus one from 2006 performance wise, ChargerBill and bull hit it on the head. That's 36 years of technology improvements. If they can't design a better faster car with 36 years of improvements, then something is wrong there.

I'd like to see a more fair performance matchup of a stock 1970 Charger R/T, and then a 2006 5.7 Hemi Charger R/T, but the new car would have to have everything removed that has been invented since 1970. Now that would be a fair matchup. The old car would win easily.

Besides, if you put the same money into each car, you could always make the old car faster easier. That is putting $35,000 into the 2006, versus buying a '70 for say $10,000 and then putting $25,000 worth of improvements into it. The old car wins again.

And concerning styling and timelessness, there's no comparison to the old Chargers. They win hands down.

[Arthu®]

  Half of you guys really have no idea what you are talking about now have you?

Btw liked the article

[bull]

Half of you guys really have no idea what you are talking about now have you?

Btw liked the article

Have you entered our presence in order to set a new standard of wisdom? If so, please impart your vast well of knowledge upon this gathering of feeble minds so it might become as wise as you.

[RT DAVE]

Did you see the part where they said they weren't going to discuss post 1971 chargers because they didn't deserve to be called chargers?   If they do a stock vs. stock comparison between a 70 hemi and a 6.1, the result will be even worse for the "classic" charger.   Not that I care.  I only care about my own car's performance.   

[TheGhost]

I'd like to see a more fair performance matchup of a stock 1970 Charger R/T, and then a 2006 5.7 Hemi Charger R/T, but the new car would have to have everything removed that has been invented since 1970. Now that would be a fair matchup. The old car would win

Of course, because the 06 wouldn't have an engine.  It wouldn't run at all if you did that.

[69_500]

I personally haven't seen the article yet. However I do like the new Chargers. Call me weird but I like that fact that Mopar has several RWD V8 powered cars that one can just walk down to a dealership and purchase. I love some cars being 4 door as well, I don't like the Charger name plate on a 4 door but that isn't the point. The point is 5 years ago we were crying for a single RWD V8 powered car to have. Now we have several and people are still crying. Are you guys never satisfied?

[70charginglizard]

Half of you guys really have no idea what you are talking about now have you?

Btw liked the article

Have you entered our presence in order to set a new standard of wisdom? If so, please impart your vast well of knowledge upon this gathering of feeble minds so it might become as wise as you.

well said Bull
And people wonder why we get so pissy with new "one star" members coming in making statements like this.

[skyhawk61]

     Any word or observations yet on how the '06 is selling nationwide?  I'm out on the street daily--a lot of it Interstate traffic and I've only seen 3 that didn't have dealer plates on them since the cars came out  My sources at the local Mopar dealer here in Western NC say they aren't moving many Chargers, but the Magnums and 300's are selling OK.  Seems the biggest complaint is the price of the Charger---the sales guy said he's lost a lot of sales to the new Mustang for buyers looking for performance vs price.                                       
     Not many Hemi's being sold in any Mopar from his dealership, he tells me.  Could be the  price of gas and the bad economy here in furniture/textile land.

[Arthu®]

Oh well a new one star member? I been around for a long long time. But never mind that. Really is it of any use. Do you really think that you could consider the fact that the new Charger is a better Charger (technically) than the old charger?

Really all this talk about how new cars fold when they are crashed which is soo bad. Really that is biggest load of crap that I have ever heard. They are made to do that and not just so you have to buy a new car every time you crash. No it has all to do with absorbing energy.

Also why the newer cars have developed less in 30 years than the 30 years before that. That is not because we can't invent stuff anymore, it just has all to do with the fact that the car as an invention is just being made into perfection now. Like any invention (look at planes for example) you first have the raw drawings and first prototypes, than there are some simple steps to make it better. But when it becomes more evolved you will have less things to worry about since it is already a good product, so than you go perfectionise it by adding the electronics, stability programs, etc.

And being less in control of the car because of all the features. That is bullshit unless you are one hell of a driver which is only a small percentage of the people out there in cars. Mostlikely not even a whole lot of us here can drive as well as we think. The stability programs, ABS, traction control, launch control do make it a safer car and more driveable car. I had the chance to drive a Audi RS6 without the electronics and with the electronics. I am a pretty seasoned racer, driven allmost all the types of street cars there are. And really a powerfull car like that is no fun if it didn't have the electronics to drive on the streets. Without it your tires would be gone in seconds and you would most likely scare the shit out of people on the street. As you will have problems hooking it to the street every time. It is a very tence ride and really not something you would want to sell for street use.

Maybe if some of you had the chance to drive a true new performance car like a new M6 or something, than maybe you would get a whole new point of view on all the electronic programs. Since I can easily say that almost none of you would drive better without the programs than with the programs. And no that isn't cheating.

Anyways the better/worse discussion on the new Charger vs old Charger really is kind of worthless as it is comparing apples with oranges.

Arthur

[Big Lebowski]

  Dodge used to make changes every year to the Charger. Lets just hope they come to there senses and redesign the ugly 4 door into something worthy of the great (2 door) name Charger.

[ChargerBill]

  Dodge used to make changes every year to the Charger. Lets just hope they come to there senses and redesign the ugly 4 door into something worthy of the great (2 door) name Charger.

Be careful what you wish for. They could come out with an even worse monstrosity...maybe a 2008 VundaCreeder or 2009 Creederschnitzel. Could be pretty scary

[Big Lebowski]

  Creederschnitzel? What's that, sounds like a hot dog. 

[Brock Samson]

 The writing was on the wall with the Super-8 Hemi, I think we all lost our lunch when that hit the fan three years ago...   

http://www.autointell.com/nao_companies/daimlerchrysler/concepts-2001/dodge-super8-hemi/dodge-super8-01.htm


http://www.autoblog.com/entry/7784671712512224/

  I belive the prior design was the '99 Concept Charger

http://www.supercars.net/cars/425.html

which other then the camaro headlites and cross bar grill was really well recived, some folks were distressd by the four doors but that was a pre-merger LH baised design..   (which actualy had a four wheel drive capability) ... but post merger we got the Hemi-8... utilizing the Mercedes componets and stalling the project two years...
In any IMHO case it's an fuginugly Charger and an ok Coronet... I dont think the upcomming Challanger will be a hardtop or have a swoopy shape... and of course you can forget about ever seeing a hidden headlight design again..

[ChargerBill]

You know, I STILL don't think they realize that they would have sold TWICE as many Chargers if they had produced the concept car. Really makes no sense...a million more in R&D to sell twice as many cars. And as far as the 4 doors on the concept is concerned, I didn't hear nearly as many complaints...because the carwas cool and the back doors were well integrated...even somewhat hidden. The 99 concept would have competed directly with the Mustang AND would have appealed to the urban crowd they are targeting right now...a definite win win. The lamos at DCX won't ever get it right, simply don't hope or speculate that they will and you won't be disappointed over and over again.

[Dale The Bold]

Bragging about how well the '06 Charger performs is like talking about how good Janet Reno is in bed.  Heck, I'll even believe when you say that the performance is there, but seriously man...dang.

[TheGhost]

You know, I STILL don't think they realize that they would have sold TWICE as many Chargers if they had produced the concept car.

Are you so sure about that?  Just because YOU like it better does not mean it would have sold much better.  And, when they made it, I'm sure people would STILL be bitching over the 4 doors, and the disgrace to the name, blah blah blah.

Face it, you really didn't like the 99 concept untill you seen the real thing, didn't you?

[Ghoste]

I loved the 99 concept and in fact, wrote several letters to DCX pleading with them to build it.  The four doors were not an issue because the car looked great.  I can recall only a tiny handful of people whining about extra doors and a vast majority saying they should build it.

[472 R/T SE]

Hey arthur .  School still keeping you busy?

It seems when '06 Charger's get discussed, never mind arguing.  Sometimes these guys are like pigs because they waller, and roll in the shit all day long.    And it's like a bad wreck, everyone's gotta stop and gawk,and say something like me.