Dodge Challenger Forum banner

41 - 53 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
When I seen the concept charger back in 2005 at the MOPAR NATS It was a two door and it did not look to bad But when they build it I said what happen to the concept charger They build a four door and the grill was off a dodge truck. That was one ugly charger Now at least the tail lights look a little better on the 2018 thats about it the front end still looks bad BUILD ONE LIKE THEY DID 1968 THRU 1970 Then you would have a CHARGER AND BE PROUD OF IT TO CALL IT A DODGE CHARGER
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,408 Posts
What do Challenger sales have to do with Hellcat motors in ugly sedans and pickup trucks? I firmly believe that the Challenger should be the "race car" and that putting 707 HP in a sedan, SUV or pick-up truck is a waste of a damn fine motor.
Makers can stuff a hi-po engine in a truck / SUV and charge $85 - 110k for and people buy them.

Its a segment that seems to defy the patterns you'd see in passenger cars.

It seems like every other person needs their personal urban assault vehicle.

If you can't roll in 7,000# of vehicle its not enough - seems to be the way things go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
As a Rebel owner, I can appreciate the TRX idea....but just can't figger it out for a 4-door family sedan or an SUV.

I saw a thread somewhere where a dude grafted an early 70's duster body onto a burned out modern Challenger chassis. Will end up with a modern Challenger chassis/drive-train with a classic MOPAR car body.

There's no room for multiple 2-door Muscle cars in the FCA stable (like back in the 60's and 70's). Dodge missed their opportunity when the screwed up the Charger. They could have let the 300 be the performance sedan and made that Charger into a retro-styled 2-door car that would have negated the need for our Challengers.

To be 100% honest, the classic Chargers are much better looking cars than the same year Challengers, and I would have much rather seen the current Challenger platform be a retro-styled Charger than Challenger (or even......a Cuda). Frankly, other than the Vanishing Point movie, I never gave the 70's Challengers a second look, until Dodge brought the 2008 one back. Always seems like the ugly older sibling to the much cooler Cuda and sexier Cuda.

Let's be honest, if Dodge had made a Charger that looked like this (Below), we all be driving one.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Imagine you want a Challenger, but the wife and kids are demanding a SUV. That you can "compromise" and get a 707 snorting beast SUV surely has to be better than a "regular" SUV?

A Guy
The day my wife tells me what car I drive.......or buy........is the day I'm out the door.

Good grief what kind of ***** Whipped society do you imagine we live in?

Now on the flip side?

If you're talking about the family short on cash and this compromise happens because money is THAT TIGHT........I can't imagine this same family can actually afford the entry level price of your "snorting beast SUV"......they aren't exactly giving those Hell Cat Powered Cherokees away. By the time your all "in" and out the door at the dealer on that one SUV.....you could have bought her the standard issue SUV she wants and a Challenger for yourself and avoided the argument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
As a Rebel owner, I can appreciate the TRX idea....but just can't figger it out for a 4-door family sedan or an SUV.

I saw a thread somewhere where a dude grafted an early 70's duster body onto a burned out modern Challenger chassis. Will end up with a modern Challenger chassis/drive-train with a classic MOPAR car body.

There's no room for multiple 2-door Muscle cars in the FCA stable (like back in the 60's and 70's). Dodge missed their opportunity when the screwed up the Charger. They could have let the 300 be the performance sedan and made that Charger into a retro-styled 2-door car that would have negated the need for our Challengers.

To be 100% honest, the classic Chargers are much better looking cars than the same year Challengers, and I would have much rather seen the current Challenger platform be a retro-styled Charger than Challenger (or even......a Cuda). Frankly, other than the Vanishing Point movie, I never gave the 70's Challengers a second look, until Dodge brought the 2008 one back. Always seems like the ugly older sibling to the much cooler Cuda and sexier Cuda.

Let's be honest, if Dodge had made a Charger that looked like this (Below), we all be driving one.
Given the super small numbers attached to overall car sales today vs SUV and Pick ups?

I think you're probably right.

ONLY car guys seem to want 2 door cars.

Society has CHANGED.

DULL as DISHWATER sells now...... John Delorean once said he could sell a young man's car to an old man but he couldn't sell an old man's car to a young man.

Selling Dodge Challengers, Chevy Camaro's and Corvettes along with Ford Mustangs to Baby boomer buyers today shows he's still half right in that statement........but where he's now probably very WRONG is found in the vast number of younger buyers who'd today buy 4 door sedans in small numbers and dull, boring SUVs in large numbers.

FUNCTION over STYLE........ it's certainly practical.

If you pick a new Subaru over a sports car or pony car or muscle car....... who in their right mind can say you're not practical or making the SMART CHOICE? Obviously an SUV that get's good MPG and is reliable transportation at lower cost is the SMART CHOICE!

Trouble is though........it's also the DULL, BORING CHOICE young buyers just didn't make nearly so often in decades past.

Some-where in the explanation of how things have changed in the minds of buyers you can find the demise of the 2 door market and probably cars themselves as dominant on the road. A lot of young buyers today are indeed buying, even preferring to buy, the car John Delorean said he couldn't sell them in the 1960s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Two door cars back in the day could fit 4 adults and their luggage.
My favorite car magazine review quote that I will still use to this day:

When reviewing a 1970s era F body Camaro the reveiwer suggested that in his opinion this was the prettiest car "the General" ever designed and sold to the public. So good looking that you can almost over-look the Torture chamber for adult passengers that masquerades as an actual back seat and you might even say that it's no big deal that the trunk is so small it can't handle much more than a bagged lunch and toothbrush.

Even today. As big as the modern Dodge challenger is in size and weight. It offers no more room inside than a Honda Civic at over 1000pds less weight and a much smaller foot print in a parking space. Clearly the mere fact that Dodge can sell Challengers suggests that to at least SOME OF US.....the styling of a car still motivates us in a purchase decision.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,408 Posts
My favorite car magazine review quote that I will still use to this day:

When reviewing a 1970s era F body Camaro the reveiwer suggested that in his opinion this was the prettiest car "the General" ever designed and sold to the public. So good looking that you can almost over-look the Torture chamber for adult passengers that masquerades as an actual back seat and you might even say that it's no big deal that the trunk is so small it can't handle much more than a bagged lunch and toothbrush.

Even today. As big as the modern Dodge challenger is in size and weight. It offers no more room inside than a Honda Civic at over 1000pds less weight and a much smaller foot print in a parking space. Clearly the mere fact that Dodge can sell Challengers suggests that to at least SOME OF US.....the styling of a car still motivates us in a purchase decision.
Compare the 2nd gen F-body for interior space against the LC/LA Challenger - there's a big difference in space.

The 2nd Gen F-body was below the interior volume as a sub-compact, but instead as mini-compact. That a coupled with a 7 cu.ft. trunk. Those cars had a large trans tunnel, especially in the back.

Coupes by their nature are smaller than their sedan counter parts - the origins from carosse coupé
literally "cut down carriage" to denote that modification.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
760 Posts
Compare the 2nd gen F-body for interior space against the LC/LA Challenger - there's a big difference in space.

The 2nd Gen F-body was below the interior volume as a sub-compact, but instead as mini-compact. That a coupled with a 7 cu.ft. trunk. Those cars had a large trans tunnel, especially in the back.

Coupes by their nature are smaller than their sedan counter parts - the origins from carosse coupé
literally "cut down carriage" to denote that modification.
Yes there is a difference but the point is still the same.

The public's love affair with the "car" seems to be over. I'd make the argument that it started this downhill slide when crash test standards, wind tunnel performance and what amounts to so very many requirements from regulations at the Government level started a trend toward "sameness".

In the 1950s, 60s and even the eariest years of the 1970s......you could easily tell the difference between a Chrysler, Ford or GM car.........styling was a serious priority and the public responded by buying cars that were good looking to their eye and often the choice didn't make much practical sense at all.

Today? Most SUVs and the few cars that still get sold all look so much the same and so very BLAND that I often can't tell what I'm looking at until I notice company Logo in the grill or on the trunk lid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
As a Rebel owner, I can appreciate the TRX idea....but just can't figger it out for a 4-door family sedan or an SUV.

I saw a thread somewhere where a dude grafted an early 70's duster body onto a burned out modern Challenger chassis. Will end up with a modern Challenger chassis/drive-train with a classic MOPAR car body.

There's no room for multiple 2-door Muscle cars in the FCA stable (like back in the 60's and 70's). Dodge missed their opportunity when the screwed up the Charger. They could have let the 300 be the performance sedan and made that Charger into a retro-styled 2-door car that would have negated the need for our Challengers.

To be 100% honest, the classic Chargers are much better looking cars than the same year Challengers, and I would have much rather seen the current Challenger platform be a retro-styled Charger than Challenger (or even......a Cuda). Frankly, other than the Vanishing Point movie, I never gave the 70's Challengers a second look, until Dodge brought the 2008 one back. Always seems like the ugly older sibling to the much cooler Cuda and sexier Cuda.

Let's be honest, if Dodge had made a Charger that looked like this (Below), we all be driving one.
Yeah, I agree. I've always liked the 70's Challengers, and the 67/69 1st gen cuda's. I love the fastback. But there was never another car styled like the 1st gen Chargers. I'd defiantly be driving one if they made a Scat Pack that looked like your pic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
451 Posts
Yeah, I agree. I've always liked the 70's Challengers, and the 67/69 1st gen cuda's. I love the fastback. But there was never another car styled like the 1st gen Chargers. I'd defiantly be driving one if they made a Scat Pack that looked like your pic.
I agree, but want to correct a couple things, 67-69 was second gen Barracuda, and I think you are referring to 2nd Gen Chargers as well. 1st gen looked like AMC Marlins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
I agree, but want to correct a couple things, 67-69 was second gen Barracuda, and I think you are referring to 2nd Gen Chargers as well. 1st gen looked like AMC Marlins.
Damn, those '66 and '67 Chargers DO look like AMC Marlins!

I wish you would have never pointed that out. HA!
 
41 - 53 of 53 Posts
About this Discussion
52 Replies
26 Participants
Pioneer4x4
Dodge Challenger Forum
Challenger Talk, the online forum for discussions, reviews of Dodge Challenger, and all things SRT, Hellcat, and Demon.
Full Forum Listing
Top