Birth and death of the original Charger

[Ghoste]

A few years back Brock posted a link to an interview with Burt Bouwkamp, head engineer at Dodge back in the day.  I found another interview with him but this one is specific to his thoughts on our beloved Charger.
Turns out he too felt the ball was dropped with the disco Charger.

http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/charger-history.html

[Troy]

Nice! (and still apparently is the standard today)

In the Product Planning Office we facetiously defined Product Planning as a series of product mistakes sufficiently corrected to show a profit.

Troy

[Ghoste]

Yeah, he didn't seem to pull many punches in the entire article did he?

[1974dodgecharger]

NEW DODGER=DODGE INTREPID 

[Cooter]

"In 1974 at a consumer research study to learn how to merchandize the 1975 style - a Charger owner probably expressed it best when he said to me, "I see the nameplate on the car but that is not a Charger!"

This still holds true today....It makes no sense to BUY the damn thing, then complain about it "isn't a Charger"...

If people STOPPED buying these over priced, Jacked up Intrepids, then maybe the manufacturer would be forced to sell something we would buy...This is not the case however. If it has 400 HP, the average Stupid public will buy it based on that alone.

[charger_fan_4ever]

Being a 70 owner I probably should know this. Did the sticker price jump considerably in 1970 ? I wonder why sales dropped so much ? You could now get a 6 pack, high impact colors, tall buckets. I know the 70 haters will say it was the front bumper that killed sales

I love the rear of the 69 with the blacked out tail pan, but prefer the flat grill like 68's and 70's. Must be why I think the 69 C500 is the ultimate charger.

[Cooter]

Possibly due to why most of the Challengers are selling today..In 1968 it was fresh and new so people bought it, in 1969, people figured better get one before they f*ck it all up, then in 1970, people figured the style would be around for a while and didn't buy as many...

[charger_fan_4ever]

Possibly due to why most of the Challengers are selling today..In 1968 it was fresh and new so people bought it, in 1969, people figured better get one before they f*ck it all up, then in 1970, people figured the style would be around for a while and didn't buy as many...

Sounds logical.

Looking at the chart there were over 40,000 70's yet AMD does not make front fenders/hood cause they think demand isn't high enough ?

I would have been 1st in line.

What happened in 73 ? Never realized that that was the highest production charger.

[Ghoste]

The 70 actually went down in price for the base model.  It did have a lot to offer but the new Challenger siphoned off some sales.  The Challenger was also MUCH more heavily promoted than Charger in 1970.  It was also the third year for that generation so people were getting tired of it.  Above all of that however, 1970 was when the insurance premiums and emission regualtions began to really take hold.  
I suspect also that a good analysis of baby boomer demographics will turn up that many of the "youth movement" so responsible for the supercar craze were now having kids of their own and entering that "get a family car" phase.

[charger_fan_4ever]

Ah ya forgot about the E body 70 debut. More of a poney car than the big B body.

[bobs66440]

It's interesting to note how sales peaked with the debut of each new model year then dropped off substantially. Surprising that 1973 would have the most sales. 

[Troy]

Being a 70 owner I probably should know this. Did the sticker price jump considerably in 1970 ? I wonder why sales dropped so much ? You could now get a 6 pack, high impact colors, tall buckets. I know the 70 haters will say it was the front bumper that killed sales

I love the rear of the 69 with the blacked out tail pan, but prefer the flat grill like 68's and 70's. Must be why I think the 69 C500 is the ultimate charger.

As the article mentions (and is stated above) the introduction of the E-bodies really cut into sales.

Also, 68 and 70 Chargers both have a blacked out tail panel. The 70 even looks just like the 69 (except the base models).

Troy

[charger_fan_4ever]

I should have said I prefer the 69-70 rear tail panel, but prefer the 69's as the 70 is body color.

[Kern Dog]

The 70 Chargers had a standard body colored taillight panel, but an aluminum fascia panel finished in low gloss black was available on 500 and R/T models.

[charger_fan_4ever]

The 70 Chargers had a standard body colored taillight panel, but an aluminum fascia panel finished in low gloss black was available on 500 and R/T models.

I have a 70 R/T and hunted for awhile to get a nice rear finish panel. It looks better than nothing and pure body color, but the blacked out/chrome trim on the 69 looks way better IMO.

[Mike DC]

I didn't read the whole thing, did they say why the '73 spiked up so high in sales like that? 

[bill440rt]

The 70 actually went down in price for the base model.  It did have a lot to offer but the new Challenger siphoned off some sales.  The Challenger was also MUCH more heavily promoted than Charger in 1970.  It was also the third year for that generation so people were getting tired of it.  Above all of that however, 1970 was when the insurance premiums and emission regualtions began to really take hold.  
I suspect also that a good analysis of baby boomer demographics will turn up that many of the "youth movement" so responsible for the supercar craze were now having kids of their own and entering that "get a family car" phase.

x2
I agree 100%.

[1974dodgecharger]

"In 1974 at a consumer research study to learn how to merchandize the 1975 style - a Charger owner probably expressed it best when he said to me, "I see the nameplate on the car but that is not a Charger!"

This still holds true today....It makes no sense to BUY the damn thing, then complain about it "isn't a Charger"...

If people STOPPED buying these over priced, Jacked up Intrepids, then maybe the manufacturer would be forced to sell something we would buy...This is not the case however. If it has 400 HP, the average Stupid public will buy it based on that alone.

you have to realize some folks dont know the charger history all they know is what they see on TV and if its saids charger well they think they got the same deal as what they see on tv alas the first 3 charger gens.

Granted the engine is there on newer chargers, but the body is NOT. YOu could say the challenger is actually the charger but they slapped challenger name on it for the sake of the name itself. They wanted the challenger to the top dog this generation over the charger so they made the charger a family sedan instead.

[lukedukem]

i agree 

[404NOTFOUND]

Obviously the third year of production and the Challenger had an effect on sales. By 1970, most car buyers must of been aware of musclecars and there were so many choices that sales must have been a bit thin between all the makes and models. As for '73, perhaps the opposite happened. A lot of the cars went down hill in styling and performance was watered down. The '73 Charger was still a hot car and might have grabbed a bigger share of the sales. That triple slot quarter window was a big hit at the time as well.

[elanmars]

most other muscle cars, by 1973, were looking pretty ugly too...

and while many may think the same for the 73-74 Chargers, i don't think so, the body and back window is my favorite out of all the 3rd generation Chargers-it would have been the ultimate 3rd gen with hidden headlights but that's an easy switch if I get another 3rd gen down the road...

[Ghoste]

As most of those 73 Charger were sold with 318's I don't think you could say people were buying them as musclecars.  However they were still sporty looking and if you wanted a mid sized car from Dodge that was a two door and it was sporty looking, the Charger was your only choice.  There were no two door Coronets at the Dodge store and the Challenger was hardly mid sized.