chrysler

[305pride]

Originally Posted by Blownhotrodder

Im happy with my 04 Ram, I really hope chrysler sticks around and continues its legacy. Its been a rough couple years and folks like to kick you while your down but I think they'll pull out of it. Hopefully fiat will actually care about the future of the company instead of whoring it out for cash like diamler did. They need good ownership and management. Still holding out for my sublime srt8 chally.

lol pull out

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

My point is this, if the car had a demand of 100k thats what would be produced. But from the start, everyone knew that wouldn't happen, including Chrysler. When they developed the car, they knew that it wouldn't sell like the Camaro or Mustang, for various reasons. Consequently, they gave the suppliers an expected volume of 30-50k, not 80-100k, and they didn't add another shift at the plant to produce the cars, and so on. Looks like they did pretty well in their estimate for their product, as did GM. But if they made a car with more mass appeal, it would sell better. They didn't, and it doesn't.

they didnt because they were smart and marketed it as a collectors /limited car. hence why people paid 40k for the challenger srt8 when the camaro has the same power for 10 k less.also when was the last time the challenger or charger (real one 2 door) were a part of dodge. yea in the 70s. you cant expect the challenger to have the following of the camaro or mustang which has been a staple of the 90s and even longer. And i agree with your point, they werent fortunate enough to have a 30k viper during the 90s....sorry.:(

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

My point is this, if the car had a demand of 100k thats what would be produced. But from the start, everyone knew that wouldn't happen, including Chrysler. When they developed the car, they knew that it wouldn't sell like the Camaro or Mustang, for various reasons. Consequently, they gave the suppliers an expected volume of 30-50k, not 80-100k, and they didn't add another shift at the plant to produce the cars, and so on. Looks like they did pretty well in their estimate for their product, as did GM. But if they made a car with more mass appeal, it would sell better. They didn't, and it doesn't.

Ya I agree with this. Maybe we were on the same page and I misunderstood. I just don't think you can take the <2000 sales months as an indicator of Challenger popularity because they did have plant issues. It seems between 2500-3000 is pretty honest and accurate demand.

[Zabo]

Dodge: It's -tastic!

[SleepWarz]

Challengers were priced to high to compete properly imho.

Along with dealer markup, Good Game.

[lnsjr1]

Nope, sorry not at all. Feel real bad about the lost jobs. They did a crappy job staying ahead of the curve.

[Zabo]

Originally Posted by SleepWarz

Challengers were priced to high to compete properly imho.

Along with dealer markup, Good Game.

Nope, just dealer markup. They are priced right in line with the Camaro.

24K for a V6 otd, and 33-34K for a V8. Dealer networks for chrysler just suck hard. Not to mention they hardly have any loyalty for their company either.. case in point Vin Devers Dod- Oh wait.. I mean "Autohaus" of Sylvania, Oh.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by Zabo

Nope, just dealer markup. They are priced right in line with the Camaro.

24K for a V6 otd, and 33-34K for a V8. Dealer networks for chrysler just suck hard. Not to mention they hardly have any loyalty for their company either.. case in point Vin Devers Dod- Oh wait.. I mean "Autohaus" of Sylvania, Oh.

also the minimal advertising for the challenger.....but once again its a low volume car. so i guess they dont need to waste the money advertising it.

[305pride]

the camaro had super advertising. lol staring in movies and shit

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by 305pride

the camaro had super advertising. lol staring in movies and shit

and also only a 6 year hiatus as oppose to the challengers 35+ year hiatus

[Speedy1975]

Originally Posted by kevin2323

you cannot compare sales figure of a 30k per year car to a 100k per year car. simple as that imo.

Exactly. And yet I hear people with 2010 Camaros at car shows talking about owning a "collector car" LMAO!

Originally Posted by DGthe3

My point is this, if the car had a demand of 100k thats what would be produced. But from the start, everyone knew that wouldn't happen, including Chrysler. When they developed the car, they knew that it wouldn't sell like the Camaro or Mustang, for various reasons. Consequently, they gave the suppliers an expected volume of 30-50k, not 80-100k, and they didn't add another shift at the plant to produce the cars, and so on. Looks like they did pretty well in their estimate for their product, as did GM. But if they made a car with more mass appeal, it would sell better. They didn't, and it doesn't.

I don't think that's correct. I think Chrysler didn't have the money to build the Challenger on it's own assembly line. It's shared with two other models which limits how many can be produced.

The Challenger is the best looking between it and the Camaro and Mustang. I've owned my Hemi Orange R/T since February and it still draws a crowd every time I drive it somewhere. I don't see that same reaction to Camaros in my area. By this time next year the Camaro will just be another car on the road, like Mustangs. Challengers will remain unique.

I nearly bought a Camaro, but local dealers didn't want to "deal" back in February which I was shopping. I bought the Challenger for Employee Price and $1000 cash back and 0% for 48 mos making it a hell of a deal. Had that deal not been presented, I'd probably own a Camaro today as I do agree the Challenger is over priced compared to the competition.

However, the Camaro interior is terrible and WILL NOT age well. In 3 years it will look very dated and cheesey and was the only real turn off for me on the car, and that huge 6 speed shifter ball needs a re-work as well.

I'm hoping for 2011 the interior gets an upgrade on the Camaro. I love the Challenger interior. It's simple and old school with a modern touch of convenience. The Camaro also needs a different gear set like 3.73s or even 3.92 (which my Challenger has giving it LOADS of torque off the line).

If those options get updated on the Camaro, I may end up with one of those as well, especially if they make a supercharged Z28.

In the mean time I'll enjoy the Challenger. They hit the nail on the head with it from a styling perspective. It produces great torque (more than the Camaro) and that's what you feel. My R/T is about 30HP less than the Camaros dyno numbers in power, but about 20TQ over. I could care less about the 2/10ths difference in the quarter mile. That's not even the blink of an eye.

The Camaro is a nice car and a GREAT value. I think the problem is that it was designed toward the youth crowd and the more I see of it the more disappointed I am with that interior. It's just awful, and I'm no grandpa. I just appreciate old school styling. Having said all that I think the Mustang's interior is the best of all three, but the power is pathetic. I test drove a 2010 GT two weeks ago and it just sucked.

Oh, edited to add....I'm no Mopar (or any other brand) loyalist. Had someone told me 2 years ago I'd own a Dodge anything, I'd have laughed. I agree most of their cars are crap, but they got it right with the Challenger. It is truly an awesome ride. The torque is just ridiculous. If they'd come out with a bit more of a line up they'll do OK...I just wonder if it's too late.

They are putting a 6.4L in the Challenger next year though.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by Speedy1975

Exactly. And yet I hear people with 2010 Camaros at car shows talking about owning a "collector car" LMAO!



I don't think that's correct. I think Chrysler didn't have the money to build the Challenger on it's own assembly line. It's shared with two other models which limits how many can be produced.

The Challenger is the best looking between it and the Camaro and Mustang. I've owned my Hemi Orange R/T since February and it still draws a crowd every time I drive it somewhere. I don't see that same reaction to Camaros in my area. By this time next year the Camaro will just be another car on the road, like Mustangs. Challengers will remain unique.

I nearly bought a Camaro, but local dealers didn't want to "deal" back in February which I was shopping. I bought the Challenger for Employee Price and $1000 cash back and 0% for 48 mos making it a hell of a deal. Had that deal not been presented, I'd probably own a Camaro today as I do agree the Challenger is over priced compared to the competition.

However, the Camaro interior is terrible and WILL NOT age well. In 3 years it will look very dated and cheesey and was the only real turn off for me on the car, and that huge 6 speed shifter ball needs a re-work as well.

I'm hoping for 2011 the interior gets an upgrade on the Camaro. I love the Challenger interior. It's simple and old school with a modern touch of convenience. The Camaro also needs a different gear set like 3.73s or even 3.92 (which my Challenger has giving it LOADS of torque off the line).

If those options get updated on the Camaro, I may end up with one of those as well, especially if they make a supercharged Z28.

In the mean time I'll enjoy the Challenger. They hit the nail on the head with it from a styling perspective. It produces great torque (more than the Camaro) and that's what you feel. My R/T is about 30HP less than the Camaros dyno numbers in power, but about 20TQ over. I could care less about the 2/10ths difference in the quarter mile. That's not even the blink of an eye.

The Camaro is a nice car and a GREAT value. I think the problem is that it was designed toward the youth crowd and the more I see of it the more disappointed I am with that interior. It's just awful, and I'm no grandpa. I just appreciate old school styling. Having said all that I think the Mustang's interior is the best of all three, but the power is pathetic. I test drove a 2010 GT two weeks ago and it just sucked.

Oh, edited to add....I'm no Mopar (or any other brand) loyalist. Had someone told me 2 years ago I'd own a Dodge anything, I'd have laughed. I agree most of their cars are crap, but they got it right with the Challenger. It is truly an awesome ride. The torque is just ridiculous. If they'd come out with a bit more of a line up they'll do OK...I just wonder if it's too late.

They are putting a 6.4L in the Challenger next year though.

great way to put it....i like all 3 muscle cars...but everyone has their preference. and yes the 6.4 is coming and also a new steering wheel which is the only problem i had with the challengers interior. along with total traction control off for the RT!

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Speedy1975

I don't think that's correct. I think Chrysler didn't have the money to build the Challenger on it's own assembly line. It's shared with two other models which limits how many can be produced.

It can run 3 shifts, it did before they got rid of the Magnum. When that got cancelled they cut it down to 2 and I haven't heard anything since then about adding it back, even with the added volume of the Challenger.

[Speedy1975]

Originally Posted by kevin2323

great way to put it....i like all 3 muscle cars...but everyone has their preference. and yes the 6.4 is coming and also a new steering wheel which is the only problem i had with the challengers interior. along with total traction control off for the RT!

The current R/T has a total traction control off ability, but you have to do it with the key, not the button. They are adding a "full off" mode to the button for 2010 R/Ts in the "Super Track Pack" option.

I'm hoping to retrofit that to my R/T.