New Charger, 4-door, WHY?

Can someone tell me why the MoPar boys just don't get it?

In the 80's they stuck the proud names of Charger and Challenger on the front drive four banger Mitsibishi import otherwise known as the Omni.

Now they're slapping the Charger name on a FOUR DOOR SEDAN!

That's nearly as horrid as when Oldsmobile "revived" the 442 as a front drive sedan.

Daimler-Chrysler really needs to make a 2-door version of their

300-Magnum-"Charger" platform.

Think of the possibilities. A Charger that deserves the name, a sporty 2-door wagon, another restyle and bring back the famous Hudson Hornet name. How about the first true hardtop in decades?

Then there's the new Mercedes four door "coupe". No, it's not a coupe. Coupe = TWO DOORS and a definite break between the rear window and the trunklid.

The car style it most resembles is the 1948-53 Hudson 4-door brougham body, but even that had more of a break in the rear body line than the new Mercedes.

They can't just go changing what a body style is just because they say different.

VW Phaeton? Does the roof fold down? No. So it ain't a Phaeton.

Remember the Audi Coupe? Audi wanted people to believe it was a coupe so much that they embossed COUPE into the big reflector panel on the rear. Unfortunately for the style concious, it was a 3-door HATCHBACK.

Corvette is also guilty of calling it by the wrong name. For many years, the closed car has been a SEMI-FASTBACK with a hatch, yet Chevy calls it a "coupe". Then they came out with an actual COUPE design but called it a "hardtop". Nice design, but the "hardtop" is the real COUPE.

About the only designs the industry gets the right name on anymore are convertables/dropheads and four door sedans.

Reply to
GAlan
Loading thread data ...

Some will say that 2 door cars are impractical.

They are right - in the case of Chrysler/Dodge where car models have been reduced significantly over the past 5 years. Chrysler/Dodge just doesn't have the necessary variety of car models to be able to offer a

2-door car (the Cross Dresser being an exeption, but then again it's a novelty car, like the Prowler and Viper).

I rented a GM car a few weeks ago - I think it was a Monte Carlo. What-ever it was, it was a 2-door car. Which I think points to the fact that if you have a healthy variety of models in your lineup, then offering a 2-door car is viable.

Back in the 60's, Chrysler/Dodge had 2 and 4-door versions of the same cars (Monaco/Polara/Newport, I think too the Fury, maybe others). Where did that concept go? With the modern manufacturing processes that we have now, plus the sheer production numbers (car models are turned out by the hundred-thousand per year - not the several thousand as was the case 30/40 years ago) we should be seeing more variety of body configurations today. Instead, we have a huge contraction (at least from Chrysler).

Considering the axe that the Germans have been wielding on Chrysler/Dodge, Dodge is lucky to be getting something to replace the Intrepid. It's a no-brainer that it's going to have to be a 4-door. The Charger name is nothing more than the result of marketing research that shows there is a benefit for using names from the past.

Reply to
MoPar Man

I'm not sure they're the only ones.

Looks like you don't, uh, get it. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

I agree with you, the name was a bad choice. Really, though, 300 was a bad choice for a FWD six cylinder 4-door. So at least they got rid of some of that.

They must think 2-door cars that size don't sell, which is probably true. They have to be careful. They replaced the four models in the LH lineup, which was very popular, with the 300 and a station wagon. I mean, Dodge dealers didn't even get a FOUR DOOR SEDAN out of that deal. Station wagons are even worse than 2-doors. It was risky, and they have to have something to sell.

Reply to
Joe

I agree that the new Charger is nothing like the new Mustang as far as being true to the heritage. However, it looks as if you are not very clear on Chrysler's history yourself.

The Omni/Charger twins were nothing in the least to do with Mitsubishi. They were started by the English firm Simca and brought over from Chrysler's European division. They were also sold in Europe as Talbots (Talbot Horizon) but with different suspension and lighter bodywork. For the US market Chrylser developed their own four cylinder engine which was a development of their legendary slant-six. This engine, the

2.2/2.5 was produced in enormous numbers for over a decade and is extremely robust. Chrysler and Caroll Shelby turbo'd it in 1984 and Chrysler went on to become the largest producer of turbocharged road vehicles in the world. Today, hot-rodders routinely tune these engines to in excess of 300hp with factory un-modified block and internals. These are all-American engines that saved Chrysler's bacon in the 1980s and routinely even today put the hurt on the Honda/Toyota crowd at the drag strip, road race and autocross.

The Omni itself may not be all-American but neither is it even one bolt or washer in common with any Mitsubishi. It's roots are in England and in America.

Sam

Reply to
samagnew

which was a development of their legendary slant-six.

******** I thought these engines were made by Volkswagon? I distinctly remember at least *some* of the Omnis having VW *on* the engine... BTW; what about all the "SUVs" being made today? People they are STATION WAGONS!!! (some of them) ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

Easy on the Giggle Cream!

Reply to
ThaDriver

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, it was written:

Early Omni/Horizon cars were available with a 1.6 litre VW or a 1.7 litre Peugeot (Renault?) 4-cylinder engine block and head, fitted out with Chrysler induction and exhaust, ignition, accessories, etc.

The 2.2 that was introduced for 1981 was an all-Chrysler design.

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

Almost. Try French :-)

formatting link

DAS

Reply to
Dori A Schmetterling

The "little" engines were VW/Audi units. The later 2.2 and 2.5 were chrysler's own engine - but how anyone can say they were a development of the slant six totally escapes me. Even the bore and stroke were totally different. They were all OHC engines, while the slant six was OHV. I think even the bore spacing was different. Possibly a development of the Ausie OHC six, but most definitely a totally different animal than the american "leaning tower of power"

The 2.5 was built in an effort to free Chrysler from Mitsubishi. The balance shafts were moved to the pan area instead of high in the block to get around the Mitsu patent. The balance shafts were fairly effective in eliminating the "big 4 buzz" so common on engines over

2.0 liter.
Reply to
nospam.clare.nce

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.