Good photos that show the new Dodge Challenger...

going the new/old Mustang route....

 

Wow, reincarnation!

 

no way they'll build it, it'd sell too well and make too much sense.

I hope they prove me wrong.

 

yea seriously. they need to make it a good deal more ugly, take out the 6.1 hemi and put in a v6, make it FWD, and automatic, and then theyll make it

 

Wow, thats nice but too much $ compared to the Mustang

 

was the price tag in the article, I missed it.

 

Car looks nice.

As for the Mustang, well, this is more comparable to the Cobra. Granted, they dont make a Cobra now, but the current Mustang is a $30k 300hp car. The Cobra was a 390hp $40k car. This Challenger is a 400hp+ $40k car. There is no reason the Challenger needs to compete with the current Mustang - firebird/Camaro was aimed at the Mustang, but this Challenger doesn't look to be.

 

I like it alot. It's nice to see Chrysler has finally gotten the styling right on a car. That hasn't happened in a while. I'm not a fan of these retro copy cars but this is my favorite of the bunch.

 

Looks cheap and plasticy.

I think the American makers really need to get over their retro kick. Yeah, they've sucked for the past x-decades, but harkening back to the time when they were successful isn't a way to reach the future. Other companies are out there innovating and coming up with exciting, new ideas. The American companies seem incapable of this.

Also, who wants to pay $40,000 for a DODGE? Especially when it probably will have the reliability of a VW and the interior of a Kia (or worse)?

 

A marketing machine for sure...........

Looks a little too heavy on the rear quarters for my liking............and they could have picked a better color for a car in a spy photo leak............maybe "Go Mango" or something brighter......heh !!

I love the new Mustang, so as far as any particular car or car company being retro I have no problem with it as long as the end product looks good and delivers.

 

Like what Chevy did with the Impala SS.

What does the interior look like? I'm guessing a lot of plastic.

I'd rather have the Mustang. It looks better.

 

The car looks like they took a real Challanger that they force fed. I am still up in the air about it.

They should offer a viper V10 version for 50k.

 

You can tell this from the outside?

VW dreams of Dodge's reliability.

And the target market for this car isn't going to care about the interior. That being said, the interior in my mom's Stratus is nicer than any car in it's price range i'll bet. When was the last time you were in a Dodge? Or are you just jumping on the Jeremy Clarkson bandwagon of "all american cars have crappy interiors"?

 

The thing that bothers me about this design is the same thing that I think makes the Mustang look funny. They basically eliminated the car's "greenhouse" and fattened up its body. The result is little slit-like windows and an overly thick middle. It looks disproportionate. More muscle-bound than muscular.

But that's just my preference.

 

I think the retro thing is great when done well, some fantastic cars are retro like the 1st Vipers, Maranello, 360, Vanquish, Murcielago, Corvettes, Ford GT & the new Mustang

Having a style that carries through the decades is important to a brand

 

I think Chrysler has done a good job with new models. The hellfire concept is a car they should definately build. The ME 4 12 is also a cool car, but I guess they had too many problems with it. I don't see a problem with going car companies going back to their successful past. It's their roots and they need to stick to it. It seems that car companies that have gone the other way have failed. The only nice car Chevrolet makes is the Vette. Everything else they put out is ugly, and has really poor build quality. Pontiac completely F'd up the GTO, the grand prix is a piece of dung, the G6 looks a little better. The solstice is a good step forward. Buick hasn't done anything great, but their cars are good, boring (which will hurt sales), but good. It's almost like the only american car company that is trying is Chrysler. The Ford 500 is a joke. How can you build a new car and have it be that uninspiring? Who would buy that? The Focus (reliable) but everything is out of place, and lower back support is horrible. The Mustang has probably saved their assez. The chevy impala sucks, cavalier sucks, I'm sure their trucks have the same crappy interior and build quality.

 

Alright, I forgive them. That's a nice car.

 

The ME 412 is a lot better than the fat Fugly SLR MB built

Yeah the GTO is a real shame, they could have built something so cool w that but instead we got crapp.

Looks like the Mustang is safe until Dodge builds the Challenger

 

August

There's a difference between taking styling cues, which are responsible for most of the cars you listed, and downright trying to copy a previous design, which is what's going on here.

With the Corvette, we've seen the design clearly evolve over the years. It isn't like they're grabing something randomly out of the past that's been dead for years. The Mustang, although better than previous models, looks awkward and out of place to me. The Ford GT works only because it was a design that was both ahead of its time and not overtly representative of contemporary design trends - sort of like the Miura. But, if somebody were to produce a new Countach today, we'd all think it looked a little funny.

Given design trends, not just in cars, but in architecture, furniture, consumer products, etc, to take a design that is decades outdated and try to revive it just doesn't work very well - it doesn't "mesh" with the rest of whats out there.

 

Completely disagree. Retro is in. You can see it in house design (around here, the traditional colonial is 'in'). You can see it in appliance design (the new fad is stainless retro looking blenders, fridges, washing machines). You can see it in car design too. The Viper harks back to the days of the Shelby Cobra, and look at a 612, it ain't no futuristic car.

Also, your comment about plasticy is way off base, as is the "$40k for a Dodge". Prices are going up... I remember when you could buy many new cars for $10k. If you even can today, it's the cheapest of the cheap Hyundai or something.

No offense, but have you ever owned a late model Dodge, or any car for that matter? I notice you are a student, so I guess (could be wrong) you have little experience with cars and little experience buying new cars and owning them for a period of time. I have had a few Dodges - Viper, Stratus and another couple here and there. They are not 70's cars, they are pretty nice vehicles. Not Bentleys or Benz's but they are nice and they have a great place in the market. Thats why they sell very well. Chrysler has had quite a few "hits" in the past decade or two - like the Viper, Ram, Neon SRT, Magnum and many others. To dismiss the whole company because of their brand name is just foolish.

 

SRT Mike,
I agree. If it's a quality vehicle, it's a quality vehicle. Because it's a Dodge shouldn't matter. The Crossfire is a quality vehicle. The 300 is a quality vehicle. If it wasn't it wouldn't sell. That's exaclty why GM isn't selling.

 

House design isn't really a good measure. People buy houses to fit a specific "look", not too buy whatever is cutting edge. But even in houses, you can see a clear evolution over the years. Since I'm from LA, I'll use Mediterranean as an example... you can see a progression towards using more stone, better iron-work, more elaborate layouts, more innovation in paints and landscaping, etc. A better idea would be to look at commercial architecture. Look at Calatrava, Gehry, etc. Architects are exploring the ways that curves and straight lines can interact, and trying to shape surfaces in ways that were impracticle, if not impossible, using technology from even a few decades ago. The works are at the same time organic and geometric. For as much flak as he gets, you must admit that Bangle is trying to do the same thing in the automotive world. And you can see similar styling cues in places like the Audi Shooting Break concept, the CLS, Enzo, etc. Now Lexus is trying to do it with the new GS and IS...these are companies that are innovating in automotive design. Even the American companies are capable of it! Just look at the Ford iosis concept or the Chrysler Firepower, or the MC-412, which I personally consider one of the most beautiful designs of the past few years. However, by ripping off a decades-old design, Dodge isn't innovating at all.

It's true that prices have increased, but $40,000+ is still primarily the territory of BMW, Lexus, etc, and it's a steep price, especially for a company which hasn't really tried positioning itself in that market segment. And the fact of the matter is, the American companies (as a whole) have been lagging in the interior department. It's sort of a blanket statement, but it is true. The Japanese in particular have been putting higher quality materials into similarly priced cars.

I'm gonna be honest. I've never driven a Dodge, and I have no desire to. My parents owned one in the mid-90s that, among other things, needed 4 transmissions in 1 year and practically weekly electrical work. Statistics say that reliability has been improving, but it still certainly can't compare to Toyota, which is what I drive and is all my parents buy now (since '96 they've bought 3 Lexuses and 2 Toyotas, and are about to buy a 4th Lexus). On every single one, we've been amazed with the reliability, overall quality, and value compared to the competition. Both Toyotas (my 4Runner and my sisters Corolla) have even been in serious accidents. She wound up with an SUV on top of her and I got an axel taken out by a woman going the wrong direction on a one-way street. And still, out of our 5 Japanese cars, the biggest problem we've ever had is that my radio antenna comes off track some times.

As far as I'm concerned, the value and quality just arn't there to justify a car with outdated styling and questionable reliability.

 

Agree 100%!!! Great thread by the way.