December 27, 2004
AUTOS ON MONDAY | COLLECTING
Dodge Charger, a Name of Many Shapes
By JERRY GARRETT

ANGRY letters have been deluging DaimlerChrysler headquarters in Michigan ever since the company announced in October that it would bring back the Charger nameplate for a 2006 Dodge.

The reason for the outcry is that the revered model name will be affixed to four- door sedans, an affront to purists who say it should be reserved for two-door coupes, where it was first used four decades ago. The revived Charger will make its debut next month at the Detroit auto show.

Trevor Creed, senior vice president for design at Chrysler, said that public response to the name's new use has been "almost unanimously negative." At Car and Driver magazine, where letters to the editor on such controversies usually trickle in, the flow has become "a torrent, running 30-to-1 against" Dodge's decision, said Steve Spence, the managing editor.

Oddly, Mr. Creed points out, many of those complaining ask why Dodge did not put its well-regarded Charger design study of 1999 into production - a car that was, in fact, a four-door.

But what defines the true Charger? Must it be a Hemi-powered, four-on-the-floor brute like the memorable models of 1960's?

Dodge produced Chargers, always in coupe form, from 1966-78 and again from 1982-87. During those model runs, the designers proved there is more than one way to skin a coupe. The Charger's body took the form of a fastback, a notchback, a hatchback and a Chrysler Cordoba knockoff.

It was a rear-wheel-drive car and a front-driver, a full-size car and a compact econobox. It was powered by behemoth V-8's and timid 4-cylinders and even the almost-indestructible Slant 6. The car also had a brief run as a turbocharged pocket rocket.

Perhaps no other model in automotive history, except for the Ford Thunderbird, has endured such an identity crisis.

Dodge used the Charger name on two design studies in the 1960's. The Charger II of 1965, a large coupe with an extended fastback roofline, was well-received on the auto-show circuit. With few changes, the shape was rushed into production as a 1966 model to compete with the wildly popular Ford Mustang. A variation of the comparatively dowdy Coronet, it had hidden headlights, four bucket seats and was available with the 426-cubic-inch Hemi engine.

Despite a late introduction, more than 37,000 of the '66 models were sold. Sales collapsed in '67 - to fewer than half as many - but fortunately a handsome redesign was already in the works.

The second-generation Charger, introduced for 1968, is the one most prized by collectors. The car's distinctive Coke-bottle contours were drawn while Bill Brownlie was in charge of the Dodge studio, but Richard Sias, a former General Motors stylist, is generally credited as the actual designer. Mr. Sias's design, done during lunch breaks and after-hours apart from his regular assignments on the Dart, almost didn't see the light of day; only a timely intervention by Elwood Engle, Chrysler's vice president for styling, saved it.

The Charger underwent few changes through the 1968-70 model years. During that era it gained a reputation as one of the most virile of all muscle cars, but in fact most Chargers were powered by small V-8's. Hemi engines, advertised as producing 425 horsepower and 490 pounds-feet of torque, never sold in large numbers, for reasons that included bare-bones warranty coverage and rapidly escalating insurance costs for performance models. And the Hemi sometimes had a fussy temperament.

The Hemi engine was an expensive option, too, adding nearly a third to the car's cost. The rarity of factory-built Hemi Chargers - which has sent values over six figures for some examples - has resulted in the assembly of many "clones" by fitting base models with replacement engines.

Charger sales took off in 1968, to 74,886. The 1969 models were only slightly changed, but Dodge added two aerodynamically enhanced versions for Nascar racing: the Charger 500, with a smoother installation of the grille and rear window, and the Charger Daytona, one of the most outlandish models of the muscle car era, with its 18-inch extended nose up front and a sky-high wing at the rear. The Daytonas were so impractical and hard to sell that many ended up being converted back to "normal" Chargers.

The third-generation Charger arrived in 1971 as a somewhat bloated coupe with a more conservative roofline - but they sold well. Production of the 426 Hemi ceased after that year, in anticipation of impending fuel regulations. Tightening exhaust emissions standards also began to put a chokehold on the 440 Magnum engine, which was gradually detuned from 375 horsepower down to 275 by 1974.

When the Charger was redesigned in 1975 as Dodge's version of the Chrysler Cordoba, the 440 was discontinued. Sales slid steadily until 1978 when the model was discontinued.

In 1982, Dodge tried to recapture the Charger magic by sticking the name on the Omni 024 hatchback, a tepid front-drive economy car. In base trim, that Charger was propelled by a weak 2.2-liter four-cylinder. Dodge later commissioned Carroll Shelby, a racecar driver and small-scale manufacturer, to build a run of Shelby Chargers, and those garishly striped versions enjoyed a cult following. The last-generation models continued until 1987.

Through the Internet, fans of the econo-Chargers have found each other and engage in a lively market for vehicles and parts. Prices are still low - running, unrestored versions can be found for less than $1,000. The cars recently earned some respect when the Charger Registry, an owners' association, added the 1982-87 models to its listings.

At this time, though, the registry does include the 2006 Charger among its listings.

 

wow....

 

As I mentioned before, the issue isn't so much putting the name on a 4 door sedan. It's that the new Charger, although it isn't bad looking, is a huge step backwards from the 1999 design.

 

I think that's the thing. Most people were prepared for a 4 door Charger. But the expectation was for a swoopy, coupe like sedan in the same vein as the '99 concept.

For Pete's sake, DCX was trailering the '99 concept to shows and events, all over the US....as recently as 2 months ago....with DCX employees telling the faithful....Yes, this is pretty much the next Charger.

I can see how decision makers would be tempted to capitalize on the Charger name to peddle this new family sedan......but holy cow!

I mean, can they not see that their is a difference between people accepting the '99 concept sedan as a "Charger" and people accepting this very unswoopy, uncoupe-like sedan as Charger.

Maybe the success of the 300/Magnum has gone to their heads, but man...what a disconnect!!!

 

You know I'm a Chrysler cheerleader, and I also believe this new Charger is every bit a muscle car by any realistic definition, and I don't think it's an ugly car.

But even I really have to question the wisdom behind the whole thing, and am befuddled by Trevor Creed seemingly being stun at the backlash over the car. As you point out, Chrysler has been still showing the '99 car off to drum up buzz in preparation for the new Charger. It was a really dumb idea to do that, then bring a Charger to market that is totally opposite (in a bad way). And again, I'm surprised he doesn't understand that.

I think you hit the target. The success of the 300 and the Magnum went to their heads.

 

This just proves that Creed needs to be removed of his position. This guy obviously has no idea why everyone hates the new Charger and has no idea about Chrysler history.

I for one think the car will look better in person then in pictures.

 

anyone thinking Blackwood??

 

It's so close to the Lutz (?) quote about the "old" GTO enthusiasts not being the target market for the new one, it's scary.......when will they learn to leave their ivory towers and LISTEN to the people on the street?

 

Not only is Creed out of touch, he's also insulting. It's one thing to say this car is not aimed at the old car enthusiast....it's another to say, as Creed did...."They think their Charger is the real one".

 

I agree with you that this new sedan is a modern muscle car and not ugly, but it is also not a Charger. SS sedan was a very nice car too, but that was not a Camaro. DCX could have snuck by a low slung sleek 4 door like the 99 concept and 95% of Charger and Dodge fans would not have cared about the 4 doors. But this boxy Charger doesn't look sporty at all. It is too bad because it will be a good car and will get A LOT of put downs just because of it's name. They should have learned from the GTO (which was 10x closer to its roots and still took crap for the name). Pontiac Monaro & Dodge Magnum Sedan would have worked out so much better with the public. I hate seeing these two great cars get disrespected just over their names.

 

The Blackwood (like the SSR) had no real truck utility. Sure it had a bed, but like the SSR, it was nothing more than a carpet lined trunk. It was also only 2wd and was the type of vehicle that obviously you wouldn't take off road (not to say anyone does, but at least there's the illusion). The final nail was that it wasn't unusally quick.

The Charger is obviously targeted as Chrysler's bread and butter sedan like the Intrepid was, so it's going to do very well on the market on it's own merits. Also, having that mother of an engine and a realtively low price isn't going to hurt.

But I'm wondering what's up with Trevor Creed. "No market for 2 doors"? "They think their Chargers are the real ones"? That's almost like RP saying Z28s can have 4 cylinders. Trevor's a design guy, so he has to understand why the difference in reaction between the '99 concept and the production car.

 

yea, well my uncle, being one of the biggest mopar guys you'll find (mechanic, owned plenty of old musclecars, new cars, whatever) said the 99 was good
and he didn't mind the 4 doors because it didn't look like it had 4 doors
now, i mean, he's probably a typical mopar enthusiast and that was his opinion
so yea, i'm gonna say that the problem (like many others have said) is not the whole 4 door thing, but the car itself getting rebadged even though it's just a 300

 

I really am not sure what everyone thinks the old chrger had in common with the concept. The concept was more a sports car which the original definitely was not!

 

nothing really
but it was no different than the last camaro compared to the first one
each design got sleeker, and more like a sports car
i would consider the 99 concept an evolution, cept i think it wouldve been better with 2 doors

 

Is T. Creed the same buttmunch that said 2 door cars were dead?