http://www.autoextremist.com/page2.shtml

 

Other possible names:

Coronet
E570
Fury
Satellite
Belvedere
Dart
St. Regis
400
Aries

However, if you consider that they're going after the 2005 version of the type of people who bought Chargers back in the '67-'72 timeframe, maybe Charger isn't such a bad name.

 

Isn't it stupifying to hear these morons from Detroit/Germany say crap like this......and then trot out models like this .

It was just as bad to hear Pontiac say something similar about the GTO enthusiasts (even though I think Pontiac was a hell of a lot closer to the target than DCM).

It scares the hell out of me when those in charge of the Camaro program don't even get it when someone (who does have a clue) mentions the name "Panther" as a code name.....

If you're going to work for an auto manufacturer... STUDY THEIR HISTORY for crying out loud!

 

I don't think the problem is the name itself. No one raised a single peep when Chrysler used the name on it's 1999 Concept car.

The problem is the car design. He's right, it is the least attractive of the LX cars.

 

While it is true that not much was said about this... I think you have to take that with a grain of salt...

The Mustang concept was a 2-seater... but everyone assumed that would not make it to production because it just isn't what a Mustang is... perhaps the same was felt about the Charger concept?

 

some good points this week, i personally thought this new car should have NEVER been called "Charger" companies have to stop trying to bank on the Muscle Car Era....it's DEAD, and let it rest in peace...can we please start thinking of some NEW names and creating some new legacies??

I also saw that DeLorenzo couldn't go another week without spewing venom towards the State of Calif...how DARE they actually try to do something about their air quality problems!! it's not like they are a big state or a lot of people live there

 

1. The Magnum isn't exactly pretty.

2. If the Magnum was selling like the Chrysler 300, the Magnum name might have spread to a sedan variant. As it is, my local dealer has about two dozen Magnums and a single (that's right, just one) stripped 300 in stock.

3. D-C is counting on the nostalgic Charger name to give the new Dodge sedan a sales boost. The move makes marketing sense and probably wouldn't have happened if the Magnum was "holding up its end" in sales. (Dodge might not have gotten a sedan on the LX platform until 2006/2007 if the Magnum RT had been as hot as the Chrysler 300C.)

4. "Midsized" variants of the LX platform are on the way and one them was originally supposed to carry the Charger nameplate. Plans change, but the likelyhood is that any coupes or converibles will be based on the shortened midsized LX cars.

5. The Charger sedan will have better rearward visibilty than the Magnum and a far cooler name. It also helps that it isn't a STATION WAGON. I might even consider one myself, if DCX decides to make a SRT-8 version with a Mercedes-style Panorama sunroof - not likely at the moment.

 

Exactomundo.

This is what made me dismiss this article...
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

 

Interestingly, DeLorenzo appeared on...I think...Dateline Detroit, afew months back, and said that he'd seen the Charger prototype, and called it a very swoopy, attractive, coupe-like sedan.

I wonder if that was the same car?

 

1. Agreed. Magnum isn't pretty. The new Beetle is "pretty". The current Thunderbird is "pretty". The Magnum looks as agressive as h*ll. I love it!

2. My local dealer has a few dozen Ford F150s in stock. Another dealer has quite a few Avalanches on the lot as well. Both are selling very well. Don't go by what's on the lots, go by how long they stay there. 30 days is about average.

3. Magnum is more than holding it's own in sales, and the idea that what is essentially a station wagon isn't "hold up it's end in sales" and that Chrysler would wait 2 or 3 additional years to give Dodge a sedan is nuts. Do you actually think Chrysler created the Charger because Magnum (selling roughly 50% or more above projections) is selling poorly? The Charger was announced last March before the 1st Magnum rolled off the assembly line.

4. Sebring convertible is being replaced by a FWD chassis developed by Mitsubishi. Charger was always going to be a sedan, as was the plan back in 1999 when Chrysler displayed the concept version of the car. I believed the coupe they were working on was going to be called Charger. Evidently, I was wrong.

5. Charger is supposed to be the "volume" version of the "LX". With the 300 selling at the numbers it is, that's a pretty tall order. The great thing is that the Charger is supposed to be selling at about $2K lower than the 300 in base form, and about $3-4K cheaper in top Hemi form.

The Charger may not be great looking, but it's going to be cheaper than a Ford Five Hundred.

 

I disagree. Other then maybe the Cuda, no other name is more well know from Chrysler then the Charger. Most people still know the name Charger, just like Corvette and Mustang.

 

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric on this.

California's new CO2 standards will have negligible effect on air quality. If the amount of fuel burned really made a difference, there would be strong programs in place to reduce CO2 emissions from other sources, including the in-use vehicle fleet.

They're pretty obviously fuel economy standards that the California assembly and senate wanted to introduce after the Bush administration pulled out of Kyoto and failed to push for significant increases in CAFE.

I think the automakers have a strong case, since it's pretty clearly a back door way to regulate fuel economy, which, by law, only the Feds can do.

If California really needed to reduce CO2 emissions, we'd go after more than just new cars starting in 2009. We might try building nuke power plants instead of natural gas. We wouldn't be building more and wider highways, etc.

By the way, here is the air quality effect. See, the warmer the air is, the easier it is to convert NOx + HC to ozone and smog. CO2 emissions are causing the temperature to rise. Therefore, if, starting in 2009, new cars get 20% better mileage than they otherwise would, there will be a tiny little percentage less CO2 generated worldwide. Because of a tiny little percentage reduction in CO2, there will be a tiny little reduction in the average temperature in smoggy areas compared to what you would have seen. That tiny little reduction in average temperature will result in a tiny little reduction in smog.

There are no other significant programs in California targeted at reduced CO2 emissions.

Mr. DeLorenzo is correct on this one.

 

I think they should have called it a Challenger instead, although when you talk about history, you have to remember the 80's:









Technically, the Shelby name/company still exists, and are probably working on the new Mustang...

Cheaper than the new Taurus? I can't imagine. We'll have to wait and see.

 

The base model Ford Five Hundred starts at $22,145. The Chrysler 300 begins at $23,295. The Charger is expected to start in the $21,000 range, making it about a grand cheaper than the Ford Five Hundred.

Don't confuse the Five Hundred with the Taurus which is still being sold for 2005 (at $20,685).

 

I personally don't think most people are more familiar with Charger than Viper, 300 and possibley even Neon.

Thats like saying the Chevelle name is still important to GM as much as Corvette. :blah: I'm not buying it.