New Charger, 4-door, WHY?

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by GAlan, Mar 7, 2005.

  1. GAlan

    GAlan Guest

    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

    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

    About the only designs the industry gets the right name
    on anymore are convertables/dropheads and four door sedans.
    GAlan, Mar 7, 2005
  2. GAlan

    MoPar Man Guest

    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.
    MoPar Man, Mar 7, 2005
  3. 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.
    Daniel J. Stern, Mar 7, 2005
  4. GAlan

    Joe Guest

    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

    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.
    Joe, Mar 8, 2005
  5. GAlan

    samagnew Guest

    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.

    samagnew, Mar 10, 2005
  6. GAlan

    ThaDriver Guest

    Chrylser developed their own four cylinder engine
    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!
    ThaDriver, Mar 10, 2005
  7. 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.
    Daniel J. Stern, Mar 10, 2005
  8. Almost. Try French :)

    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

    Dori A Schmetterling, Mar 10, 2005
  9. GAlan

    Guest Guest

    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.
    Guest, Mar 11, 2005
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.