OT Dodge's New Super Bee

Michael Johnson wrote in news:p7OdnadqycAOYnTbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

I see this as a good thing. Maybe I'm old school, but I like mass and weight for safety. If a 300C meets a Mustang in a collision, which car's occupants will come away with fewer injuries? Sure, that's a glittering generality, but I'd rather put my wife in an SUV than a Honda Fit.

They're very popular around here, although a lot of them sport 22" dubs and whatnot...

I see it as: Why mess with a good thing?

Same here. The market needs that car.

Reply to
Joe
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:1189736426.944303.316350@

22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

As a follow up, I have to ask how many would've liked a 450-hp Maurader?

Reply to
Joe

"John B." wrote in news:1189705994.684582@nfs- db1.segnet.com:

The 2 door, 4 cylinder 1980s version?

Reply to
elaich

Ooooooooooooo - yes. And the Plymouth version was later a Duster. I had an '86 Plymouth Turismo, which was basically a Horizon 2-door fastback. Actually kind of a fun car with the 2.2L and 4-speed. I especially liked the sunroof, which you could completely remove. Got rid of it before it blew up, though, as it was burning gallons of oil - heh.

John B.

...with a MUCH nicer 2005 Mustang GT now.

Reply to
John B.

I consider "four-door muscle car" to be an oxymoron. I thought the whole point of such a car was to be a bit of a rebel, etc. A rebel with four doors? Doesn't work. (OK, so Rambler/AMC made one. But they ALSO made a TWO-DOOR model!) I can ALMOST understand something like a BMW or Audi luxury sports car, but not this - so sorry. I think Dodge dropped the ball not by coming out with something "retro" earlier. [As he points to his new Mustang-->] And isn't the production Challenger up in the air now with all these fuel requirements that will be upcoming?

Reply to
John B.

In the computer age we should be able to have our cake and eat it too. I think the larger luxury cars need the weight to provide sound deadening, allot for all the options etc. If a 300C collides with a GT500 I don't think we can call a winner as they both weigh damn near the same. ;)

The trouble is that they need to do this to keep the public's interest and to not get left behind as technology advances. The Big Three tried this approach before and damn near became extinct back in the 1980s.

I think it would sell. I just think Chrysler doesn't have the money or the ability to bring it to reality. The 300C is a MB design and I wonder if they have the in-house ability to redesign it or even the legal rights to do so.

Reply to
Michael Johnson

The Marauder sucked. It was too big, way too under-powered, and priced too high. Nice idea, done just as poorly as Dodges attempts...

The closest thing any of the BIG-3 have gotten to getting it right in the last 20 years was the 5.0 mustang eating 1988 SHO, this car caught everyone else flat footed, no one offered anything close for years, but of course, Ford screwed that up too...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

That is why I drive a 10,000 pound F-450. You don't buy a sporty car to be a tank... Well you might, but I do not...

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

:>On Sep 13, 4:41 pm, Joe wrote: :>

:>> I can't believe you guys don't like that kind of performance simply :>> because of the number of doors. I'd love to hear your opinions if that :>> same kind of performance with 4 doors were added to Ford's current :>> lineup. You're saying you'd diss a 450hp Grand Marquis, or a RWD 450hp :>> Taurus? Hmm.. :>

:>Excellent point! I have to ask how many Charger haters liked or loved :>the Maruader? :>

:>Patrick

My ex has a 2003 Marauder, stock for now, and he loves it. I've driven it and for the size and weight it's quick off the line and performs well at highway speeds. Is it a match for my Mach 1 or Corvette? No, but its comfortable and quick enough to be a fun luxury ride. I'm told there are as many Maurauder folks doing gear changes, headers, exhaust, and supercharging as there are Mustang folks doing the same.

And to answer your question Patrick instead of the Charger he says he'd rather have the GT 500 or an 03/04 Terminator. Right now he has three other Mustangs besides the Marauder so I doubt anything new will be added anytime soon. :)

Reply to
Sarah Czepiel

I think our expectations are too high for the Challenger. I hope I'm wrong, but I get the funny feeling we're in for a letdown -- much like what we received with SSR -- too pricey, limited numbers, too heavy and I'm afraid the Challenger's roof top was compromised for styling.

Patrick

Reply to
NoOption5L

Nice follow up!

Love to hear some comments.

Patrick

Reply to
NoOption5L

Rebel? The muscle car concept was take plain ol' pedestrian sedan and add some excitement by dropping in a potent motor. Not until the latter 60's did the formula get altered to a rebel theme with the swoopy body styles, big scoops and wings. If anything, the current

340 HP 4-door Hemi Charger is closer to the original idea than say a '69 Daytona Charger or '70 GTO Judge.

I think they all did. IMO, the current Mustang look should have been out in the mid 90s and upcoming Camaro look by the late 90's.

[As he points to his new

Nope. It's still coming. But hopefully Chrysler didn't pin it's recovery hopes on the Challenger's fortune.

Patrick

Reply to
NoOption5L

Michael Johnson wrote in news:NZednbjZEdWCMHfbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Interesting point. ;) BTW, there were ads in last Sunday's paper for GT500s at a local dealer. I think the ad price was around 50k+ or something.

IMO it's a balance that has to be maintained. Makers have to know what's currently selling and what's going to sell next year. I'd imagine it's the same in your field, Michael. Your designs have to be current (i.e., what works) but timeless to the point where they'll still be popular and functionally viable in 5 to 10 years.

If it stays relatively close to what we've already seen, it will be a runaway hit.

I'd have to think that Cerebus took care of all that stuff with the buyout. So far, Chrysler's design team's doing just fine IMO. Certainly no worse than anything Ford or GM is coming up with.

Reply to
Joe

"My Name Is Nobody" wrote in news:VEDGi.1742$A72.1630@trnddc08:

I don't either. That's why I primarily drive a truck now. I've been hit in both cars and trucks; I can tell you first hand that the trucks hold up much better...

Reply to
Joe

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:1189816092.574526.54860 @o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

For all our sakes, I hope you're wrong, Patrick. Now, the SSR has come around these days. It's still a toy, but at least it's now got a decent engine...

Reply to
Joe

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote in news:1189816270.729259.320480 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

The Cobra drivetrain could've ended up in the Maurader. Automatic could've even been an option. Everybody's happy. ;)

Reply to
Joe

"My Name Is Nobody" wrote in news:QXAGi.583$ec2.223@trnddc03:

The SHO was neat for sure, but IMO you're being a bit too harsh on the Big3. There were certainly cars that "got it right". The most obvious examples are the Mustang and Corvette.

Reply to
Joe

Joe wrote in news:Xns99ABE5B38134Dnospamforme@

216.77.188.18:

BTW, here's an interesting Challenger link..

formatting link

Reply to
Joe

Yes, but what else have they done right since the Corvette in the 50's and the Mustang in the 60's?

Reply to
My Name Is Nobody

The Pinto. Especially the hatchback model that I had. A wonderful car to drive and a great all-purpose utility vehicle.

Got my first speeding ticket in that car.

dwight

Reply to
dwight

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.