So, how does the Charger compare...

jasonlee0704 · Jul 7, 2005

The Dodge Charger is a complete letdown... DaimlerChrysler is marketing it as a direct descendant of the 60s Hemi-powered muscle cars. Head-to-head, the Mustang GT beats it in every performance category, looks better, and starts $5000 less than the Charger R/T. Compared against the GTO, for $500 more than the Charger R/T Daytona (before the GTO's massive incentives) you get a car that absolutely blows the Charger away.

If DaimlerChrysler were marketing the Dodge Charger as a family sedan with some spunk, like a Mazdaspeed 6 competitor, that'd be one thing. But the expectations built up by the DC media machine has been performance, performance, performance, and their use of the Charger nameplate doesn't help.

The Charger name deserves something better than a rebadged Chrysler 300 with a truck grille mashed onto the nose. It'd be like Ford rebadging a Five Hundred, throwing in a Mod engine and calling it a Mustang.

300bhp/ton · Jul 8, 2005

jasonlee0704 said:
It'd be like Ford rebadging a Five Hundred, throwing in a Mod engine and calling it a Mustang.

Well that is pretty much how the Mustang was created back in the 60's. Where do you think the fox platform came from and the engine line up.

The s197 platform is a derivertive of the Jaguar X Type and I think Lincoln LS. But these are both connected to the Ford Mondeo.

You may notice a slight familiarity with another Ford model:

stanmckinney · Jul 8, 2005

That grill looked good when I first saw it long ago on another vehicle. It's time somebody used another grill on a Dodge or Chrysler. Maybe is should be Cry Slur???

Klay · Jul 8, 2005

300bhp/ton said:
Well that is pretty much how the Mustang was created back in the 60's. Where do you think the fox platform came from and the engine line up.

The s197 platform is a derivertive of the Jaguar X Type and I think Lincoln LS. But these are both connected to the Ford Mondeo.

You may notice a slight familiarity with another Ford model:

Ya but what you fail to realize is that now that the charger has some history behind it, people will expect a new one to be like the old one
That is why the mustang is doing so well, people can familiarize it with the older ones

If the new charger had looked anything like some of the older chargers people would like it muchhhh more and it would actually be a good competitor for the mustang

ANGELMAV · Jul 8, 2005

Well the charger is not meant to be a competitor to the mustang, thats why they dont make a 2dr version. DMC is trying to get people back into there sedans and thats the route they took. If you need a family car and still want something kinda sporty then buy a charger instead of a Honda or Toyota, thats what they were going for. If I had to have a 4dr (I need a minivan for the family car) I would pick one up but its not in the same class for comparison to the mustang nor was it meant to be. Its the name that has everyone confused.

Mossberg · Jul 10, 2005

I have one Intrepid (oops, I mean Charger) kill under my belt. This car doesn't deserve to carry the Charger badge point blank. From now on, I will call it the redesigned Intrepid. CHARGERS HAVE 2 DOORS!

jfischer · Jul 10, 2005

Mossberg said:
I have one Intrepid (oops, I mean Charger) kill under my belt. This car doesn't deserve to carry the Charger badge point blank. From now on, I will call it the redesigned Intrepid. CHARGERS HAVE 2 DOORS!

At least until the SRT comes out, you should have nothing to fear from a Charger. The SRT might be closer, but I still think the Stang would prevail.

jasonlee0704 · Jul 10, 2005

What's funny is that a year from now, some aftermarket company will start creating "General Lee" clones from the new Dukes movie, like the "Eleanor" clones after Gone in 60 Seconds came out. I'd bet those clones create more excitement from Mopar fans than the real new "Charger" does.

300bhp, the S197 used the X-Type chassis as a starting point, which Ford then modified to get what they wanted from the new Mustang. It's not like you can change out some body panels and a badge and turn a Lincoln LS into a Mustang - which you can pretty much do with the 300/Charger. It's the whole "K-Car", "cut every possible cost" vs. "make a better car" mentality that really irritates me.

Ford made the same mistake in 1979. Back then nobody in Detroit knew how to make a decent car. The Fox-body Mustang's best attributes, IMO, was its powertrain and the namebadge - even then, Ford never exploited the 302/5.0L anywhere close to its potential. It was up to the aftermarket and customers to do that for Ford.

ETA: If I were DaimlerChrysler, and I wanted to create some excitement from a new Charger, here's what I would do.

I would take a basic '68/69 Charger shell, alter some of the lines to bring it up to date (a la the future Camaro fanboy sketches). I would alter the basic 300C chassis to fit the Charger design, revamp the interior and safety equipment, and offer a 6 cylinder, Hemi, or Bigger Hemi option along with a manual or auto option.

Most people will buy a 6 cylinder with an auto. But a Charger should always have the option of a stick to go with a huge V8.

DC really dropped the ball with its play-it-safe, "it has to have 4 doors to be profitable" design choice. When you put a nameplate with the history of a Charger on a car, you are making a Statement Car. People shouldn't look at it and say, "It's a 4 door sedan", or "It's a 2 door coupe", or even, "It's a rebadged 300". They should look it and say, "IT'S A F*****' CHARGER, AND I WANNA OWN ONE!" Statement Cars, like the Ford Mustang, follow different rules than normal cars. Ford understood that with the 2005 Mustang redesign, and guess what, the Mustang is now one of the bright spots of the Ford lineup.

Klay · Jul 12, 2005

jasonlee0704 said:
What's funny is that a year from now, some aftermarket company will start creating "General Lee" clones from the new Dukes movie, like the "Eleanor" clones after Gone in 60 Seconds came out. I'd bet those clones create more excitement from Mopar fans than the real new "Charger" does.

300bhp, the S197 used the X-Type chassis as a starting point, which Ford then modified to get what they wanted from the new Mustang. It's not like you can change out some body panels and a badge and turn a Lincoln LS into a Mustang - which you can pretty much do with the 300/Charger. It's the whole "K-Car", "cut every possible cost" vs. "make a better car" mentality that really irritates me.

Ford made the same mistake in 1979. Back then nobody in Detroit knew how to make a decent car. The Fox-body Mustang's best attributes, IMO, was its powertrain and the namebadge - even then, Ford never exploited the 302/5.0L anywhere close to its potential. It was up to the aftermarket and customers to do that for Ford.

ETA: If I were DaimlerChrysler, and I wanted to create some excitement from a new Charger, here's what I would do.

I would take a basic '68/69 Charger shell, alter some of the lines to bring it up to date (a la the future Camaro fanboy sketches). I would alter the basic 300C chassis to fit the Charger design, revamp the interior and safety equipment, and offer a 6 cylinder, Hemi, or Bigger Hemi option along with a manual or auto option.

Most people will buy a 6 cylinder with an auto. But a Charger should always have the option of a stick to go with a huge V8.

DC really dropped the ball with its play-it-safe, "it has to have 4 doors to be profitable" design choice. When you put a nameplate with the history of a Charger on a car, you are making a Statement Car. People shouldn't look at it and say, "It's a 4 door sedan", or "It's a 2 door coupe", or even, "It's a rebadged 300". They should look it and say, "IT'S A F*****' CHARGER, AND I WANNA OWN ONE!" Statement Cars, like the Ford Mustang, follow different rules than normal cars. Ford understood that with the 2005 Mustang redesign, and guess what, the Mustang is now one of the bright spots of the Ford lineup.

That's what I was trying to say but you said it much better

STANMAN · Jul 12, 2005

And yes, they say the 09 Challenger will be a 2 door. It will still be on the same frame as the 300 and Charger though. Hopefully a nice long hood, and short ass, just like the E body's!

corgan · Jul 12, 2005

And the 2005 ugliest vehicle award goes to.......................

Chysler!

I think this makes like 10 years in a row now.

They should've put a big cannon on top of the charger to complete the whole tank look that they seemed to be going for.

jfischer · Jul 12, 2005

corgan said:
And the 2005 ugliest vehicle award goes to.......................
Chysler!
I think this makes like 10 years in a row now.

No, Pontiac takes the award at least for 2001-2002 with the Aztek. No vehicle Chrysler (or anyone else) makes is uglier than that abomination

So, how does the Charger compare...

jasonlee0704

New Member

300bhp/ton

New Member

stanmckinney

Klay

New Member

ANGELMAV

New Member

Mossberg

Active Member

jfischer

New Member

jasonlee0704

New Member

Klay

New Member

STANMAN

New Member

corgan

New Member

jfischer

New Member

Similar threads

So, how does the Charger compare...

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency