You comment about the GTO is ludicrous!! The GTO isn't retro enough, but the Charger as a 4 door boat is just fine? That is too funny.

Yeah, it really does follow the "original sedan" muscle car theme.

 

THAT is the UGLIEST fuggin' thing I've seen since the Aztek...........good God, when will it end?!?

 

Somebody at DCX needs to lose their job over naming this thing "Charger".

 

I guess I'm more lax with the Charger being 4 door becuase I'm not as big a fan of DCX as I am of GM. I would prefer the Charger to be a coupe, but Ion/RX8 suicide doors or SS concept 99 Chrager concept 4 doors looked good. I'd only except 4 doors as long as that 4 door looks very coupe like. 1999 concept Charger was done right.

 

Here is why I called it the "sedan Mucle car theme"

Once long ago.. muscle cars began life out as family sedans.... and the first crossover into the "true" muscle car world was the GTO... from then Muscle cars looked similar to sedans... Long...Wide body style, and Luxury oriented, but with a large engine... Hince the "66" Charger is more luxury appealing than muscle...

Go to car shows... read a book.... don't qoute my comments unless you know about the car you speak of got that?

As far s the GTO it's impossible to call it retro... if you think retro refers to the original 90's design of the Holden Manaro... there's no way a Manaro can be Retro designed to a GTO... the two cars have nothing in common.

 

Ya, I can see your points... I don't think many of us here are as rabid about other marque's as we are about GM...

The suicide half doors are somewhat of a comprimise... this is where I, personally, cross into that gray area, becuase I feel that something like this would work extremely well on a new MONTE CARLO... and it'd be a great way to further differentiate a new Monte Carlo from a new Chevy Coupe... even if both were RWD.

The reason I could let this go on a Monte is twofold. First, it's not a "four-door" in the traditional sense of the word... and secondly, I think Monte Carlo has always been about a larger, mid-lux personal coupe... and I think hidden doors would not effect that formula the way that a full blown 4-door setup would...

I don't look at "Charger" in the same light though... I feel that really needs to be a larger, strictly 2-door muscle coupe to stay true to it's name, even though it was obviosuly not that in the 80's either...

 

We can solve this very easy.

Is the Impala SS of the mid 1990s a "Muscle Car"?

If it was, the Charger definately is. If you think it wasn't, then it isn't.

I think the term "Pony Car" and "Muscle Car" gets confused sometime. Muscle Cars were big engines otherwise typical family cars. In the 60s that was mid-sized coupes. Since the 1990s it was sedans (like the Impala SS).

The new Charger most definately fits the concept of a Muscle Car.

The REAL problem with the new Charger is that DaimlerChrysler didn't spring for the swoopy body of it's 1999 concept car (which I would have prefered.....ALOT).

If Chrysler had done that, I don't think there would be many people complaing about the name.

 

Don't ever lecture me on Muscle Cars of the past. I'm not sure how old your are, but I grew up and drove those "sedans" when they were new.

www.nikivee.com
www.musclecarware.com
www.detroitheavymetal.com

 

That's because GTO is not retro, and was never meant to be.

The new GTO in 2007 has been said many times ot NOT be retro.

That's fine by me.

 

New Mustang > New Charger

That better put down some serious numbers if they want it to sell.

 

Agree with most of you. The new Charger is UNINSPIRING.

 

HFS!!! DCX should be ashamed of themselves...THAT is a Magnum Coupe, NOT a Charger!!!! These ***** people tossed away the '99 Charger Concept for THIS!?!?!?!

I hope the Ford SVT Cobra styling is better executed than this American Tragedy and DCX should FIRE whoever keeps putting fat, tall, truck-like front ends on their supposed performance cars...I'm willing to bet that the OLD charger had a better cd

 

AGREED ... that's where I am. And between the two options, I would probably take the suicide door Monte Carlo at this point in my life ... muscle car with a little more utility.


On the Charger, if you look at the original earlier 60s models, you see the resemblance, I do anyway.

 

Simply awful. Why does the front end come to raised points at each side? I guess it's trying to look tough? All the other bodywork just points to a cobbled-together car from the clay mold of a 300. This is no Charger.

 

That is truly an UGLY vehicle.

Really, really bad. No other words to describe it.

Like a 1979 Fairmont had sex with a 1966 Charger and this is what came out.

Kill it, please!