Ditto. I was disappointed they never built the rumored 300C convertible, butDrDeath said:I would prefer a retractable, but the top is going to have to go down in order to get me to buy .
I think the convertible will depend on how popular the car becomes and how many units they sell. I dont see this car being a failure tho, so I think a convertible version is inevitible.41husk said:If it is built will they build a convertible, and does anyone have any insight on price range?
Mr.DJ said:IMHO, a two-door convertible with sleek body lines; i.e., the new generation Dodge 'Challenger' will certainly be more visually appealing than a four-door '300C' version.
Now, if the '300C' convertible would only be reconfigured into this exquisite concept model (the '300 HEMI-C'), then I just might reconsider the entire idea all together.
Uhhh well if a 1970 Cuda could withstand the 500+ lb/ft of a 426 Hemi, I think a modern convertible could be engineered to withstand the ~425 lb/ft of the 6.1L.JET said:Ditto. I was disappointed they never built the rumored 300C convertible, but
a lighter, smaller Challenger convertible would be even better, even if
structural concerns (i.e. bending the frame/body just ahead of the rear wheels due to rear wheel torque) would limit it to the smallest V8 or
Dutch said:Uhhh well if a 1970 Cuda could withstand the 500+ lb/ft of a 426 Hemi, I think a modern convertible could be engineered to withstand the ~425 lb/ft of the 6.1L.
That may be, but there were comparatively few if any Hemi convertibles
built in the 70's, and they only had something like stock G70-15 tires to
provide traction (not very much) most of the 500 ft/lbs turning into
smoke. With modern street rubber thats stickier and wider than 70's race
rubber, and car's being engineered lighter, it'll take a lot of reinforcing in
that area to meet warranty specs with a Hemi. Might not be worth the
headache to Chrysler.