New Mustang selling big

I guess when I hear the name "Charger" I think of a Mustang competitor. I was also hoping it would be too.

I think there is going to be a few pissed off vintage MOPAR fans when they see the new Charger. :)

The Thunderbird was an abortion from the start. The car didn't know which end was the front. It should be used as a shining example of how going retro can turn out something butt ugly. They could have at least put the Terminator engine in it. That would make me overlook some of that ugly styling. The Crossfire is a nice looking car and DC could had made a powder-puff version and one that would rip up the asphalt. Mercedes does this with several of their models under the AMG name plate. I want an AMG Crossfire, damn it!

After reading up on the Shelby GT500 who ever wants to compete directly with the Mustang had better come to that party sporting a real big set of doo-dads.

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news:0q-dnc3ghobMpd snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Yup. That's one awesome car. Although I wonder exactly what Shelby (the man) actually contributed to the car except his name.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

I think the proper question is "What did Ford contribute to Shelby to use his name?" He does nothing with his mane without getting a paycheck for it. I think about the only thing he did for the GT500 is sit in it and get his picture taken.

"Michael Johnson, PE" wrote in news:ksKdnWtvrp_iUN snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

LOL! So if Ford hadn't put 'S H E L B Y' on the back of the car, it would've cost $5000 less. ;)

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

I bet it added at least $1,000-$2,000 per car. With a production run of

7,500 cars the first year, $1,000 per car puts $7.5m in his pocket.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:41:36 -0500, ZombyWoof puked:

Wasn't the Neon originally a Plymouth?

-- lab~rat >:-) The less you care, the more it doesn't matter.

It's already started. The new Mopar Muscle magazine skewers the Charger both on the cover and inside, basically mirroring the talk going on here.

I don't blame them either. It would be like Ford discontinuing the Mustang and then several years later slapping a Mustang name on something like a Taurus or Crown Vic variant.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:14:08 -0500, "Michael Johnson, PE" wrote something wonderfully witty:

The Mustang III?

We are lucky the Mustang II sold well or it might have been the end of the line for it. Now why it sold is a mystery to me.

They were going to try that with the Probe. We (collectively) bitched, and they made both, and made even more money.

I'd hope they wouldn't be that silly, but look at the Charger, and to some extent the GTO. I guess it could happen to the Mustang too.

JS

Consider the alternatives at the time! Pacer, Gremlin, Vega, Citation and its cousin the Pinto.

-John

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:07:04 -0800, "Generic" wrote something wonderfully witty:

Yeah that pretty much answers that question. Ever see one of those King Cobra's from that era? Local kid has one that he uses to deliver pizza in.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:19:36 GMT, "JS" wrote something wonderfully witty:

I have no idea why the decided to recycle the Charger name on a

4-door, but some Marketing Whiz deep in the bowels of DC probably has an answer. As I said before, perhaps to appeal to those who owned the first round and are now graying.

The GTO is another story all together. It was simply a stop gap measure to play to the renewed interest in Mucsle/Pony cars until they could get their act together and come up with something (Still haven't done so to my knowledge).

After all the GTO was really the car that started it all (Muscle cars, not Pony cars). They (GM) didn't have the time, energy, balls, or domestic platform to throw a big V8 in like they did the last time around. So they dug deep into one of their subsidiaries and pulled out a platform that they could do with as they originally did with the first GTO, add a big engine to a regular sedan.

Problem is the car is how shall we say, bland? Time will tell with the `05's stylizing clues back to the cars heritage as well as the bigger LS2 motor, but I still don't think it is going to sell well at it's price point. Damn thing is just to expensive with limited interest at it's current price. Here locally the `04's really started to move once the prices were dropped in to the mid-20's. I've seen more GTO's on the road here in the past month then I have in the past year. Still don't see any SSR's on anything other then dealers lots, even now with the price dropped down to about $32k. I like it's concept, but it is about useless as a pickup, and to heavy to be a Muscle version of anything. All in all it is simply a cute styling exercise. It could have been oh so much more.

The problem with DC's concept of the Charger as a four door sedan is that it is a very crowded segment of the auto market. There are many, many capable sport sedans, including many from DC itself. They are bringing nothing new to this segment to differential a Charger from a

300C, BMW, Mercedes etc. I just see the use of the Charger name plate on this car as a waste of a good marketing opportunity that will alienate many of the older MOPAR fans. It might loose them as many buyers as it creates.

Didn't they try this in the 80's with the Daytona cars? I remember good ol' Shelby had a word in on a couple of Daytonas... and I'm pretty sure early on in their lifecycle they used the Charger name as well. Maybe the stuck the turbo-4 in it, not sure.

They really need to get their act together and start putting the name on something reminiscent of its heritage. They might as well put it on an SUV at this point.

JS

"JS" wrote in news:NUV0e.36491$FB6.22200@trndny09:

IMO everybody's too hung up on names. Forget the name and check out the car. That goes for any marque.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

While I can see your point, it's the automaker's use of the names that's part of that equation too. They use that name hoping that it triggers the response in the brain to check out the car. You see "DC reintroduces the Charger" and you immediately think ponycar. You think fast Mopar muscle. You think of a car that'll turn heads, make lots of noise, and make you dream of it at night.

They got part of the solution right, but they missed the turn heads part, IMO. You may disagree, but I think it should look more like the NASCAR Charger and less like the 300C.

They use the name to get us to check the car out, otherwise we wouldn't even bother naming the silly things. We have the right to be let down if they give us a poor representation of the original. They could have called it anything else in the world and there wouldn't have been so much as a whimper from Mopar fans... but they used a name sacred to the Mopar faithful. What if the '05 Mustang flopped like the GTO (or Cambirds) and they discontinued it, only to bring it back 10 years from now looking like a Crown Victoria with 400hp? The collective sigh of disappointment from enthusiasts would be very large indeed. Fast and RWD it would be, and a great car at that, but still no Mustang.

Which leads me to the question... why are we trying to recreate our not-so-distant past already? What happened to new? New car names, designs, etc... could just as easily leave a lasting impression if executed correctly.

JS

Everyone is trying to entice the Baby Boomers into buying their products. It's a large market, they have money and many are desperately trying to relive their youth and are willing to pay through the nose to do it.