Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
No, my point is that the Charger nameplate was tarnished long before 2005 & those that think otherwise are unaware of their history.
Plus the new car does a pretty good job at following up the originals from the late 60's/early 70s based on size, engines, drive configuration, and styling (with the 2nd new generation). The only area that it does not continue from where the originals left off is the number of doors. So if that is your be-all/end-all criteria for what defines a car, then no ... its shouldn't be a Charger. But using that same logic, the car from the 80s was totally deserving of the Charger nameplate -because it only had 2 doors. And that is more absurd than saying the current car shouldn't be a Charger. The only alternative is claiming that any new car using an old name must retain every single possible descriptor of the original(s), otherwise it shouldn't use that name. And if you agree to that it opens up a whole 'nother ball of worms (like the late 60's Charger not being 'Charger enough' for the name)
|
yea I hear what you're saying. I just think they could have sold the same car under a different name and it would have sold just fine. I feel that they revived that nameplate just for the sake of doing it to boost sales and put it onto the wrong vehicle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Racin J
I agree in a way with Denis as far as the "cool" factor goes..the new Charger isnt as cool as the first gen, however performance wise the new beats the old speaking of the v8 variants, but DGthe3 has very good points too. I love the new chargers and would rock one in a heartbeat, as well as the old, we should be glad that we have the performance numbers today whether its chevy, dodge or ford! We all win  |
oh its a great time to be into cars, that's for sure!
