New Dodge Charger is terrible

who cares? wrote:

how about VW, Audi, Porsche?

should say, "how about BMW, Audi, Porsche"

I prefer Toyota Echo Rally Edition.

who cares? wrote:

who cares? wrote:

how about VW, Audi, Porsche?

should say, "how about BMW, Audi, Porsche"

GM is reliable? Ha ha ha. You people believe whatever you want.

Americans may not be able to build a car worth a shit, but I wouldn't tell them that to their face. They use their massive economy to build missles. And damn if they ain't the best in the world 100x over.

You make a few good points here. In fact, one of the cars I own is an 82 BMW. Fun to work on, even more fun to drive. I don't know how this turned into a discussion about reliability, though. I own 2 German cars now simply because they are more fun to drive. If I had the money, I'd probably pony up for that 71 Challenger even if the cost is ridiculous. Something about those cars, you know???

Is it at all conceivable [disclaimer: I don't even pretend to understand the dynamics of R&D in major automakers or the economics that drive the energy market] that market forces are more powerful than government intervention? A few questions:1. Historically, why wouldn't automakers in general have been all over alternative energy? The automaker that developed a decent car that didn't need gas would have many, many advantages over its competitors.2. Given the huge economic benefits awaiting any company who solves this problem, why would I expect a "National Defense Priority" to bring products to the market faster?3. Is it thus possible that finding an economically feasible source of alternative energy is just a difficult technological problem to solve, and not due to the inherent laziness of automakers?4. Further, is it possible that it's a better investment to work to improve fuel economy of gasoline engines, which are a proven manufacturable, reliable, and safe technology?Also, Csaba Csere from Car and Driver wrote an interesting analysis of oil costs last year. Turns out that Middle Eastern oil is cheapest to extract. So if a large energy consumer, such as the US, needs less oil, it will lessen overall demand and create a surplus. This will drive US markets away from more expensive sources of oil, such as domestic sources and South America, and actually increase the proportion of our oil that is purchased from Middle Eastern sources.

The Grim Truth wrote:

Developing a car that does not run on gasoline or petroleum products should have been a National Defense Priority back in '73. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

I agree that the new charger looks like and is garbage. I don't know what Dodge was thinking, they are degrading the classic with that four door grocery getter. The new hemi is overrated, that is until they come out with the new version putting out 425 horsepower.

GM is reliable? Ha ha ha. You people believe whatever you want.

So tell me what kind of vehicle do you own? Tell me something, do you believe in supporting the US economy? I love people that stereotype cars. As I believe in 2004 GM had the most reliable car, even better than toyota (the buick century) yeah I know its archaic, but hey it got better reliability ratings. It seems that Japan and consumer reports have totally clouded the minds of people in this country. I for one will never buy a foreign car. I don't care what you people think of me. To me there is nothing like running through the gears in an old musclecar. That is a rush unlike any other!

I believe that now, most "American Made" cars are actually produced with more foreign parts than "foreign" brands like Toyota. So whatever people may argue about supporting the American economy by buying domestic is a bunch of bullshit. So think what you will, but don't be blind to the truth.

post deleted wrote:

that's what most people look for when they purchase a muscle car. FUNCTIONALITY. And good fuel economy.

Really?! They look for functionality AND good fuel economy in a muscle car? You're the biggest clown I've heard of in a long time. Nothing like a good ol American fuel efficent muscle car! You turd.

Lee Iococca wrote:

Really?! They look for functionality AND good fuel economy in a muscle car? You're the biggest clown I've heard of in a long time. Nothing like a good ol American fuel efficent muscle car! You turd.

Are you serious?

Wow.

Unbelievable. Not only do you make a fool of yourself by failing to pick up on the heavily laid sarcasm, you try to feel better about yourself by throwing in some names. I hope you feel good. Also, for future reference, that would be Lido (Lee) Iacocca. With an A. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Just like so many Japanese (and even European) cars are made with US labor.

As for the people stupidly shedding tears over how much they dislike the all new Charger, welcome to a soulfree America where style trumps substance more than ever. What say ye of the neoGTO?

Here's a last look and then I'll let this thread die.

Terrible...

Audi wins lemans in almost all classes fairly regularly so I would say they know a little more about performance and durability. They especially outperform in the fastest class, that is definitely saying something.

At the risk of signing up for large buckets of abuse, I'll put in that it doesn't look that bad. Of course, it doesn't look like the Charger in Bullit (which I have on DVD somewhere), which was a mean-looking 2 door coupe.

Obviously, this is just a Dodge version of the Chrysler 300C. Obviously, they were looking for some name-recognition label to pin on it to help with advertising; it is not a true homeage job like the new Mustang. But the nitch makes sense. If someone wants a fast, rear-wheel drive sedan that seats 5, the only real choices are BMW 5- or 7-series, Mercedes E- or S-Class, or the larger Lexus. There just isn't that much competition in this class -- everyone has a batch of V-6 powered front-drive commutermobiles, but this is pretty much the whole list of RWD V-8 mobiles (short of the cop-car Ford Crown Vic, which remains popular for exactly these reasons, despite handling like the 25-year-old design it is).

It looks like a fun car for a good summer 500 mile vacation.

Okay, you may now let the abuse begin.

P.S. I actually think the new GTO (2-door but 6.0L V-8) is slightly bland looking, but a swell car. I'd buy one if I didn't have two thousand other things to buy first.

It depends what you want out of a car. The VW product scores slightly lower in JD Power which primarily measures initial satisfaction but they score much higher in long term scores of other surveys. Surveys are far from the final word about a car . As far as quality of build I measure that also in the cars ability to protect its occuppants in the event of a crash and the american cars drastically lag in terms of structural integrity. In terms of expense a new Jetta is about 18,000 which is in line with any car in it's class,and Audi is to VW as Mercury is to Ford, same cars slightly different trim and chips in their engines. These surveys don't seem to be hurting MB or Porsche as they have both enjoyed record years in the U.S. As far as the New Dodge broader market appeal drives 4 doors. Two door car sales have lagged for years so the manufacturers embraced four doors to sell more cars.

I HAVE (2) WORDS FOR YOULAND ROOVER

who cares? wrote:

who cares? wrote:

how about VW, Audi, Porsche?

should say, \"how about BMW, Audi, Porsche\"

I like my Echo

adam smith, you make some interesting points, which have common sense appeal at first, but please allow me to discount them a bit:

RE your points about carmakers and alternative fuels - the issue here is huge startup costs. the carmaker who spends billions in borrowed money to develop alternative fuels risks bankruptcy if things don't work out. and if they do, their competitors will be able to mimic the technological advances at a much, much lower cost. thus, there is little incentive to take such a huge risk.

a more efficient approach would be for the government to partner with the large american automakers and to jointly develop an alternative fuel car. it's a huge project, with very high costs, and with diffuse benefits that are almost impossible for one company to capture.

second, re middle east oil, you make a good point about middle east oil being the cheapest to extract and that consequently, at lower prices middle east oil would still sell fast and oil in other places would not be profitable. but this ignores at least two relevant points: 1) the concern with middle east oil is dependency - if we are buying middle east oil not because we have to but because it is cheaper, then we are not dependent. we can opt for higher priced, but readily available, oil from other sources (and the market can be comfortable knowing that an alternative source for oil exists in case of political strife or an eruption of violence in the middle east).

2) if oil prices drop, there is less money going to the middle east. lower oil profits mean less money for authoritarian regimes to control their people (and to pay off radical clerics to support their regime) and less money to trickle down to terrorists.

mackenzie wrote:

German cars are so overrated. Their reliability is worse, yes worse than american cars. GM actually scores very well in reliabilty ratings, behind only Toyota and Honda.

GM third most reliable...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nissan and Subaru might have something to say about that.