if u can confuse a stratus and a sebring or a charger and a 300 or a caravan and a town and country if none of them had any badges, then you really don't know jack **** about cars. what about the explorer and mountaineer or the 500 and montego, or the fusion and zephyr. if u confuse any of those then thats just damn sad. cars may be based off of each other, but they each have there own identity and you have gotta be a really stupid guy about cars or a women to not know what a car looks like even if it doesn't have its name on it.

 

Nicko dont be a dipstick, I wasnt talking about Chrysler vehicles in PARTICULAR, in fact I clearly mentioned that Chrysler was the leader in using vehicles from the past... Now try other cars like mazdas, certain Hondas, Hyundai's, Kias, toyotas and so on and so on... Are you just trying to prove how big of an A** you can be while we are trying to have a civil discussion here... GEEZ

I am sure others here clearly understand the point that I was trying to get across. Many, many autos look very similar to others and with several manufactures simply sticking their names on another brands vehicle plainly blurs your ability to tell one from another. Only slight differences like headlights and taillights most of the time and a set of wheels. Real imagination going on there.

And as for you personally... I bet you a thousand bucks that I have not only seen more cars than you have but have driven at least 10 times as many in just the last 2 years than you have in your entire life. I spend most of my week picking up and delivering cars to local auto auctions and usually have at least 2 different autos daily in my driveway along with my own vehicles. Sometimes you amaze me with the huge amount of crap that flows from your fingertips.

OH but I forgot that an 18 year old knows everything about anything right, yeh right...

 

Nicko, he's right about this. The difference between alot of cars....like the Chrysler Sebring/Dodge Stratus is basically very minor. You're talking maybe a different grill setup, head/brake lights, and some interior differences. Same thing goes with the Ford Fusion/Mercury Zephyr, Chevy/GMC/Cadillac trucks.....etc etc

Most of it is just minor changes and what not. I do agree that there are alot of cars out there that could easily be mistaken for another car if it was debadged. I dont think you could confuse a Magnum or a Mazda RX-8 for anything though.....

Chrysler's able to use alot of those vehicles from the past because they keep discontinuing popular cars....some of its because they had to....but some of its just plain stupidity....but I will agree, they do it best in using older car names...

 

Look at the pot calling the kettle black...[&:]

 

That's what I'm talking about. As you said take the badges off of most new cars and there really is no discernable difference in their look and that is where Dodge is capitalizing. Their cars and vehicles in general do look different and people like the idea of the car they drive standing apart from the crowd. That's another reason retro is so hot because everything out there is so much vanilla flavored. People want some flavor other than what everyone else has.

The GTO and the Camaro are based from the same platform and yet look at the difference. GM was just lazy with the GTO. Just another Pontiac is ALL the styling says. More vanilla in other words. If memory serves me right the 68 and on GTO was a far cry from boxy. They were downright sexy, this coming from a died in the wool MOPAR NUT! Why didn't the General go there? LAZY, we'll put a GTO badge on it and it'll sell like hotcakes! Also in my opinion the 300 and the Charger are boxy designs that are doing well and why? Because they are different from about everything out there. The arguement that the platform limited the design doesn't ring true because of the differences between the Goat and the Camaro. GM just banks on the "faithful" remaining that way and tries to get by with "safe" and cheap design. The only stretch in design of recent I have seen from them are the Canyon and Colorado and again in my opinion they are just butt ugly. I could go on but I really lose interest in talking about these guys quickly.

 

i'm still not too sure yet what to think of the new camaro's! i think the grills are ugly as hell because it looks like the car is smiling. idk i think gm would see better sales if they ditched the idea of the camaro and went with the trans am! that is just my 2 cents.

i do think that dodge hit a homerun with the new challenger!!!!! that car looks totally awesome, looks just like the old challengers. one thing i dont like about is that the pistol grip shifter isnt made out of wood like the old mopars were in the 70s.

-MOPAR kicks ***!!!!