Truecharger:

I took a look at the site. Really funny stuff. I'm actually impressed that they tried calling you several times and listened to your criticism.

You start with a 'cogito ergo sum' type cornerstone: The '68-'70 Charger was the best ever in terms of styling. Sure. This might be the best lookin' Dodge ever.

However, there is something of a hole in the argument.

The '66 Charger was an exciting new concept. It was called a 'hybrid' then - we would now call it a crossover - because it combined station wagon utility with the fold down rear seat and 8 foot load floor. Really it was 40 years ahead of its time - sort of the "Magnum" of its day.

You say "at least the fastback was distinctive" - indeed it was rightly compared to the AM Marlin at the time because the fastback was the next big thing in auto design after the 'formal' or T bird style roof had run its course (Think '63 Grand Prix, all the downsized Plymouth and Dodges of '62 to '64).

However, even at the time - the original Charger was considered ugly, and it sold badly too. When the '68s came out DEC '67 Motor Trend comparison test "SUPERCARS!" quotes something like "Dodge finally threw away the shipping crate of the '66-'67"

Then there was the '71 - it too was heavily praised at first, though later versions with oddball vinyl roofs ('73 and '74) were criticized.

Then there was the '75. Was it really ugly? No. The Cordoba on which it was based was a top seller. It sold something like double all the regular 'big' Chryslers combined. It could be seen as a much more tasteful version of the Chevy Monte Carlo, which also sold in the hundred thousands.

The point is this: The only Charger that really gets the nod as a 'real' Charger was only made for three years, and then all the other ones - including the more GT/ponycar '80s version were terrible. So for 20 years, only 3 of the years were 'good' years.

Essentially, you demand the Mopar catch lightning in a bottle - like asking Alexander Graham Bell - "why can't you invent something like the telephone again?"

I think there were many wrong turns made in this car. It should have had a reduced wheelbase for 'muscle' proportions - all the busy creasing in the rear quarter and doors reminds me of the over-sculpted '66 Charger. Couldn't they at least hide the door handle in the C pillar - hell Nissand did it for years with their Pathfinder SUV? Besides, BMW sells two door 3 series every day - can't Dodge have ONE measly two door?

To me, it seems the problem is that they tried to combine two cars into one - a 'family' Intrepid to keep the dealers happy, and a "musclecar" to get people like us wound up.

This was a job 'brand engineering' might have done more simply. Have a Dodge version of the Chrysler 300 sedan - Dodge dealers now have their new "Monaco" of whatever and they can shut their traps. Then you make a God's honest two door shared between a "300C or 300N" or "Firepower" and a superbird/daytona style nose or something for the Dodge version "Charger." Maybe you make the highest end versions Chrysler only to preserve the brand hierarchy.

I think Meredes was very skeptical of brand engineering (why else get rid of Plymouth?) and was worried that if allowed to thrive at Chrysler group, it would seep up into the Mercedes line and dilute the appeal of the Mercedes (isn't it just an expensive Chrysler?)

Maybe dealers have more pull in the US than in Germany - probably the Germans really wanted to just give the Magnum to Dodge (as a 'light truck' it compensates for the Ram in CAFE) and have Chrysler only get the sedan, but they gave into the dealer whining.

Perhaps Mercedes was trying to avoid all 'internal competition' but dealers probably must choose either Dodge or Chrysler, and dealers feel like, "hey, it's my job to lobby for Dodge to make sure Chrysler doesn't make all the money and I'm sitting here with a hundred discounted Strati" This happens all the time. GM was forced to give "Novas" to Olds, Buick and Pontiac once the Nova started racking up sales in the early seventies - all at the behest of dealers.

I think the Germans thought "gosh we have so many brand names to fill with this one chassis," when they are used to just making three sizes of Mercedes sedans. Truth is - they could have used the same number of variations (three: 300/Magnum/Charger) and had three more models and more variety without really 'diluting' anything.

So while I agree that you are onto something with the Charger being less than it could be, I just think the argument you make comes down to asking Michelangelo "Sure you did the Sistine Chapel - can't you do that again?" Chevy should also make a car 'worthy' of the '55 Bel Air, but that's a very tall order - maybe even impossible to have such a great leap forward when the competition is so fierce.

At the same time, the basic idea that the Charger goes wrong by being a 'sedan' while also being a 'musclecar' is implied in your critique.

The problem: this is one car designed to do two things.

 

You made alot of sense but I thinkt he only thing to do is cross or fingers for a coupe model. Which I heard there will be a 330 version in liek 06' or 07'.

 

I think the Fire Power and the Charger suck That Fire Power looks too much like the Crossfire and another Chrysler prototype. They need to create something better..


-Matt-

 

Nicely written. Interesting read and lots of good points.

One thing is for sure, this new Charger is very polarizing. It will be interesting to see just how well it sells.

 

Kingelvis makes some good points, so I'll address them.

I do give points to the utility of the 1st gen Charger's fold-down rear seat and the storage that it provides. However, to me that's in the "practicality styling" category as opposed to "artistic styling". Anyone who's backed up a 2nd gen Charger with those long C-pillars knows how that feature interferes with vision. But screw practicality, the car would not look right without those long C-pillars. Other examples of practical styling are the '36(?) Chrysler Airflow and the areo '81(?) T-bird. Neither car is artistic achievement, but both are groundbreakers.
The first gen did what it was asked: make Dodge appear youthful with a car that has a dramatic fastback. And that Coronet with the fastback obviously helped Dodge get to the market quicker than they would've with all new sheet metal. And speed was the name of the game in 1965.

Gens 1, 2, and 3 are real Chargers. Any muscle car, even Chevy and Ford, are good muscle cars. After all, us owners DO drive something which has a combination of looks and power not to be found elsewhere. But yes, when it comes to styling the 2nd gen is THE Charger.

And as I state on my site, companies have to sometimes show "cultural responsibility" with their products because sometimes they find out that they don't own the products, AMERICA does. As I state on the site, New Coke and the naming of the Probe to be "Mustang" are perfect examples of being midcourse corrected.

Since the 2nd gen Charger is so well known to non-Mopars, Dodge is simply using that name as a crutch for this sedan. Even tho it's really a watered-down Super 8 concept. So it's nothing more than a crass marketing decision.

As as I point out on my site, the key with cars when you show heritage, is to use styling cues to EVOKE the model (not re-create). As I point out, this is where the new Mustang and Vette do so well while the GTO fails so miserably. And gosh, look at the sales of each model--you're true to your heritage and you win at the market. You try to ram something else down America's throat and you get puked on.

If one word describes real Chargers (1, 2, 3) it's they're "swoopy". There's absolutely nothing swoopy about the new "Charger"--Dakota clip and Intrepid rear combined with slab sides with those odd humps in the doors. (And even if the car was not named "Charger", I'd still think how come Dodge got the lump while Chrysler got the cool looking one.)

While I'm not thrilled with the 4-door aspect, I could live with that if the rear doors were disguised somehow (see site). After all, real Chargers are B-bodies, which were 2 and 4-door. Assming the new Charger model doesn't fail (why would ANYONE choose it over the 300C?), I can't help thinking there could be a 2-door later. Like from PT Cruiser to GT Cruiser.

And as I point out at the site, I list the styling cues that should go into a car named Charger. And if I find a 300C model, I'll modify it to incorporate those cues and show how I would EVOKE the real Chargers and demonstrate cultural responsibility. So it's not a case of Sistine Chapel II, but what should've been Burt Rutan--go from one wild success (Voyager) to a similar, yet different craft (Spaceship One). (I'm sure this car will have "Langley" written all over it instead.) We'll never know, but if Dodge put such a model on sale, I'd bet my own Charger it'd sell better than the Super 8 "Charger" they're going to try and foist on the public.

 

TrueCharger.....

I find it very interesting that you state on your website that you sent correspondence to several people at Chrysler, and after your second response, they have not written you back.....

And you know something....... Don't expect one !

Why would a company executive want to write to someone that insults ! If I were an executive that received that letter, I would toss it. What's the old phrase, you can attract more flies with honey then with vineger?

The fact that they contacted you and explained their point of view tells me that DCX does listen! Would a GM/Ford executive write back? I doubt it !

I personnally agree with Chrysler's response. Try it... If you don't like it, DON'T BUY IT ! Let the buyer's vote with their dollar, just like the Astek or the 300C.... I'm willing to go take a look at it.... And if I don't like it, I'll look someplace else...

But STOP WITH THE BACKBITING of Chrysler..... What good will come of it ? Heck, I still would like to see the names New Yorker or Imperial return... Heck I'll take a four door over two doors any day of the week.... Personnally, I think the front maybe nicer then the Magnum's... But that is MY opinion.

So, let them call it whatever they want... It is JUST A NAME !! The name may bring people in, but the car has to be good. If not, the car (and name) will vanish again.

I'm sure you will respond with your "hate" of the new Charger. But, you know something....... If you write the way you did to the Chrysler Executives, don't expect a response from me either !

[:@]Please leave the Venom and Bile at the doorstep !

 

Thanks for responding Truecharger.

There really is something to that '68 - I actually like the round taillights and the grille looks more unique - less "Pontiac" without the divider in the middle.

Dodge was well rewarded with skyrocketing sales compared to the '66 and '67. You can see they had similar 'vocabulary' in the design of the '67 compacts - especially the Barracuda and the '69 "Fuselage" big cars - I think there's a good bit of Charger in my '69 300 when you look at the hidden headlight grille.

The 'secret' lies in the fact that, though it was about as conventional as you could get underneath, the lines evoked the Lemans type cars of the day like the Ford GT 40 or maybe the Porsche 917. The rear 3/4 view of that era is incredibly flattering - the big gas cap - the way the roof line sweeps inward like a real race car of the day.

The idea (ripped off from GM) of a flying buttress roof gives it a long rear deck look from the back, but from the side it's more long hood. I think the only thing we wouldn't like today would be that the car seems a little too narrow for the length, and the wheels are set back too far from the fenders. The '71's were lower and had a nice wide track but to me they were just copies of what GM did in '68 intermediates - getting rid of the line between the roof and fender.

At the same time it could be viewed as a poor mans' Buick Riviera or Grand Prix - it was always a 'personal' car and Mopar's bigger intermediates were famous for offering rear seat room that GM's 112"wb models lacked.

Nobody is going to like this, but I really think the Chrysler Cordoba is a close analog to the Charger. Rather than raciness, it was about wealth and luxury, but essentially they were both 'personal' cars that projected an image that was far more exotic than the mechanicals underneath. The trick is that they were cars that could easily do the 'dirty work' of grocery getting and hauling the wife and kids around. So really they shared the essential element of the '58 "square" T bird with the backseat - they looked exotic and expensive but were actually just dressed up bodies on tried and true chassis. Don't forget, the Cordoba was actually MORE popular than our beloved Charger in terms of sales.

Both Charger and Cordoba (and the '64 Mustang) pretty much were Paris Hiltons - they sold themselves on looks alone. By that measure, the new Charger doesn't measure up at all. While the older cars were sort of sheep in wolves clothing, the new one is sort of wolf in sheep clothing.

Keeping the long wheelbase was a fatal flaw. I've toyed around drawing cars in scale, and you cannot replicate the muscle look and still have your 120" wheelbase. The famed Popular Hot Rodding design study keeps the long wheelbase, and still doesn't succeed in my view, even though they lower the roof and dialed in physically impossible tumblehome (how does the window go into the door at that angle?).

Someone seems to have declared that cars can't have any rear or front overhang to speak of - something both Cordoba and Charger had in droves - so right there the basic silhouette of the car can't be replicated.

The new car does feel like a missed opportunity - I still think they could lower the roof and made the rear deck slope down more - the lower rear deck is a styling staple of the good old days. Still, I think their is some of the "Sistine Chapel II" in expecting the new one to match the '68, and I do think the Charger is better looking than the 300 with its odd truncated rear end.

Maybe we should just be glad they didn't go with that nauseating "Super 8" concept. That was absolutely awful - you wonder how many people had to sign off on that ugly duckling to get it all the way to the auto shows.

 

does anyone no if there will be 2-doors availible to buy or will it all be 4-doors

please, please let them all be 2-doors
and let it have dual exhaust to