http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=100949

 

Again, why are they bothering? It's a re-hash of the blunt, upright 300...oh but it has a dodge front and a character line in the rear quarter...

 

That NASCAR version at the bottom is what was described to me as the production Charger's nose. I took it as the actual Charger front end instead of the Car & Driver rendition, and said so.

Guess I'm eating crow on that one.

 

my feelings are the same
staying with the 300 body style was a mistake imo

also, does anyone think the bottom half of the front looks like the mustang?

 

*yawn* looky...it's dodges version of the 300 sedan.

I don't mind the blunt front end, but the 4 doors and sedan profile killed this car for me. There's zero sportiness in its lines. They should have just called it the magnum sedan, and left the charger name for a more worthwhile coupe.

 

Very dissapointed! I, like many others, would like to have seen the 99' Charger concept in some form but I think we knew this was comming. Anyway, it's not bad for a sedan, and I think I might like it better than the 300 but as far as a Charger is concerned................boooooooorrrrrrrring.

 

i think its a great looking car. i don't understand how the fact that its dodge's version of the 300 should surprise anyone. the fact that it shares NO external body panels with the 300 is more than any of us should have expected. the 300 and Charger are more destinguished than most platform mates of other manufacturers. so what's with the negativism? just because it has 4 doors it can't be Charger? do me a favor and put your thumb where the rear door seem comes down when looking at the profile of the Charger next time. looks like a Charger to me.

 

Can't say that I don't feel some disappointment.

Dodge can score afew points with me though, if the offer the Hemi with a six speed manual (which they won't).

 

The more you look at it, the more you can see the "Charger" in it. You have to wonder what a Charger Daytona might look like. Really, it's not bad for a sedan and they did seem to do a decent enough job of disguising the rear doors without going the RX-8 route.

Btw, what's this "SRT-12" blurb in the article? That number seems a few cylinders off.

 

I don't understand how those rear doors are supposed to be minimized, I'll just wait to see it at the auto show.

 

Sorry for consecutive post, but the old thread brought this to mind. It doesen't matter what the old charger looked like, it could have been a Minibus with a spoiler package. This "new muscle car generation" doesen't seem to be curbed toward those who "miss" the area it's for those who "missed" it, and we to young or not born enough to remember it. So if it is as blocky as these pics suggest I believe DCX is going to learn the same lesson GM just did, selling a name (GTO) is fine but people who buy a name, want just that a name(and maybe an engine). And aren't going to sacrifice all things modern and trendy (hoodscoops, racydesign, TWO DOORS) just to be true to the name.
You can't sell a hot image, to people who interested in image, if that image is completely not hot by todays standards...

 

That car does absolutely nothing to me...

TS

 

I'm not excited at all when I look at that. The front end is a decent start but it still looks like a bloated pig. The GTO looks 10x more sporty than this thing.

How are those rear doors hidden and how does this resemble the '99 concept?

 

couldn't have said it better myself

 

it was supposed to have rear suicide doors that were small... and be like a coupe but with 4 doors. It might be a great car, but why are they calling it charger. A charger was not 4 doors. At least the "terrible" gto stayed with its root as a coupe.....

A 4 door mustang would not be a mustang, a 4 door camaro would not be a camaro, so why should a 4 door non station wagon magnum be a charger... its just a magnum sedan to me which is not a bad thing at all. Im still hoping they suprise us and unveil a 2 door 6 speed 400hp Charger. That would be a very welcome suprise