Challenger falling behind in road courses?

[MrIcky]

Unfortunately I agree on the Dodge thing. I thought by now they'd show up with something to give you a glimpse of a newer better Dodge future. I've seen some plans for engine development and the Lancia Delta Chrysler thingie which is ok for what it is but doesn't make me go wow.

IMHO Dodge makes the best trucks on the market right now and very competitive minivans, but their cars in general can't compete. I appreciate the Challenger for what it is. I don't think the Challenger is where there issue is though. They have Rams, Minivans, Chargers which do ok and seem to be really taking off for police fleets, a cool but low volume specialty car and then way too much filler.

As far as the performance goes, it was competitive when it came out. I remember the first RT beating that years Mustang in a comparo (no Camaro's yet). Camaros came in strong a year later, Mustangs up'd their game for 2011. I guess the 2012 refresh will tell you if Challengers want to compete or just be a cruiser. We'll probably know in a year. MZS3s beat the Mustangs in the 07 lightning lap too.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Stew

I have always seen the Challenger as the one I want to go cross country in or drive everday. It is a tourer, a top speed autobahn type car. Because it has differrent strengths in other areas, doesn't mean it's less of a car. Yes the Camaro and Mustang are better track performers, but a Challenger is like Harley, it's not about racing it, it's about enjoying it and being seen in it. I don't personally look at a motor trend and say "damn that car only ran a 13.1 in the quarter mile and only pulled .88G on the skidbuy, no way I'd buy it!" I go drive the cars and get what I like, what my heart tells me "I" am gonna like. Really, how many buyers even pick up a car magazine these days?

Where? It looks good and is only a "good" performer when the average driver is behind the wheel. In comparing vehicles, IE not comparing a driver's ability, the Challenger makes no sense to buy compared to the other two. You get more car for less money, unless you really want to throw thousands of dollars at the most retro look. Obviously, most people don't take the retro choice looking at their sales numbers. Chrysler needs a car that can sell and beat its competition.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Where? It looks good and is only a "good" performer when the average driver is behind the wheel. In comparing vehicles, IE not comparing a driver's ability, the Challenger makes no sense to buy compared to the other two. You get more car for less money, unless you really want to throw thousands of dollars at the most retro look. Obviously, most people don't take the retro choice looking at their sales numbers. Chrysler needs a car that can sell and beat its competition.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Where? It looks good and is only a "good" performer when the average driver is behind the wheel. In comparing vehicles, IE not comparing a driver's ability, the Challenger makes no sense to buy compared to the other two. You get more car for less money, unless you really want to throw thousands of dollars at the most retro look. Obviously, most people don't take the retro choice looking at their sales numbers. Chrysler needs a car that can sell and beat its competition.

You kind of missed my point. THe people buying the cars aren't buying them for what they will do on a track or what some magazine says is best. The Challenger was NEVER meant to be a high volume car. When it came out the goal was around 30k per year, not 100k+ the Mustang and Camaro. The Challenger is basically an image car to bring people into dealerships. On the LX platform, the Charger and 300 are the mainstream sellers. The Challenger does what it is meant to do, be an image cars, and the limited colors IMHO are to get people in showrooms as much as sell cars. Before the conentrate on the CHallenger, they need to work on their high volume cars, a quicker CHallenger is not going to save them. They are supposed to have fully revised Avengers and Sebrings on the lots by the end of the year, that's a start. Right now they are broke and can only do stopgaps until they get the Fiat Platform cars integrated and that is going to take a few years.

[Brokinarrow]

Originally Posted by Stew

You kind of missed my point. THe people buying the cars aren't buying them for what they will do on a track or what some magazine says is best. The Challenger was NEVER meant to be a high volume car. When it came out the goal was around 30k per year, not 100k+ the Mustang and Camaro. The Challenger is basically an image car to bring people into dealerships. On the LX platform, the Charger and 300 are the mainstream sellers. The Challenger does what it is meant to do, be an image cars, and the limited colors IMHO are to get people in showrooms as much as sell cars. Before the conentrate on the CHallenger, they need to work on their high volume cars, a quicker CHallenger is not going to save them. They are supposed to have fully revised Avengers and Sebrings on the lots by the end of the year, that's a start. Right now they are broke and can only do stopgaps until they get the Fiat Platform cars integrated and that is going to take a few years.

i think those few years are going to reeeaaalllly hurt them, if not kill them off completely. hopefully i am wrong and they pull out of it.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Where? It looks good and is only a "good" performer when the average driver is behind the wheel. In comparing vehicles, IE not comparing a driver's ability, the Challenger makes no sense to buy compared to the other two. You get more car for less money, unless you really want to throw thousands of dollars at the most retro look. Obviously, most people don't take the retro choice looking at their sales numbers. Chrysler needs a car that can sell and beat its competition.

Its a comfortable car, with better visibility than in the Camaro. It also has a few more features (I think, never bothered to investigate).

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Stew

You kind of missed my point. THe people buying the cars aren't buying them for what they will do on a track or what some magazine says is best. The Challenger was NEVER meant to be a high volume car. When it came out the goal was around 30k per year, not 100k+ the Mustang and Camaro. The Challenger is basically an image car to bring people into dealerships. On the LX platform, the Charger and 300 are the mainstream sellers. The Challenger does what it is meant to do, be an image cars, and the limited colors IMHO are to get people in showrooms as much as sell cars. Before the conentrate on the CHallenger, they need to work on their high volume cars, a quicker CHallenger is not going to save them. They are supposed to have fully revised Avengers and Sebrings on the lots by the end of the year, that's a start. Right now they are broke and can only do stopgaps until they get the Fiat Platform cars integrated and that is going to take a few years.

Then the bold is Chrysler's fault for producing a vehicle that wasn't meant to sell. Why would they make the goal so low for? Do they realize they couldn't compete with the other two? I can understand your point on the marketing of the Challenger as an "image" car. However, the Camaro and Mustang have the same image as the Challenger and they can do this as well as being a good seller.

[maximus7969]

:bangdesk::characte r0264:

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Then the bold is Chrysler's fault for producing a vehicle that wasn't meant to sell. Why would they make the goal so low for? Do they realize they couldn't compete with the other two? I can understand your point on the marketing of the Challenger as an "image" car. However, the Camaro and Mustang have the same image as the Challenger and they can do this as well as being a good seller.

The 3 cars currently have their own areas of the market. Beyond brand loyalty and styling, the Camaro is the best performing and the least practical. The Challenger is the most practical, yet worst performing. The Mustang is between the two in all regards. So, when you consider the fact that most people will never drive their car to 50% of its capabilities, no matter what the car is, so technically performance limitations are actually less important than how you feel while driving it. The Challenger is intended for those who accept that, and merely want a nice daily driver or cruiser. I don't agree with this choice, but I understand where its strength lies.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Its a comfortable car, with better visibility than in the Camaro. It also has a few more features (I think, never bothered to investigate).

Yep a few off thetop of me head is the new for 10 touch screen head unit with 30g harddrive (standard on SRT), available navigation, push botton start, that's just off the top of my head.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The 3 cars currently have their own areas of the market. Beyond brand loyalty and styling, the Camaro is the best performing and the least practical. The Challenger is the most practical, yet worst performing. The Mustang is between the two in all regards. So, when you consider the fact that most people will never drive their car to 50% of its capabilities, no matter what the car is, so technically performance limitations are actually less important than how you feel while driving it. The Challenger is intended for those who accept that, and merely want a nice daily driver or cruiser. I don't agree with this choice, but I understand where its strength lies.

Assuming this is all true, then why didn't Chrysler make it a "high-volume" car for it to sell more? Since you believe that people would rather want a comfortable daily driver, then the Challenger should have no worry about selling in this market right? Sales sure don't reflect that.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

Assuming this is all true, then why didn't Chrysler make it a "high-volume" car for it to sell more? Since you believe that people would rather want a comfortable daily driver, then the Challenger should have no worry about selling in this market right? Sales sure don't reflect that.

I blame it on consumers being stupid, generally a valid assumption.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The 3 cars currently have their own areas of the market. Beyond brand loyalty and styling, the Camaro is the best performing and the least practical. The Challenger is the most practical, yet worst performing. The Mustang is between the two in all regards. So, when you consider the fact that most people will never drive their car to 50% of its capabilities, no matter what the car is, so technically performance limitations are actually less important than how you feel while driving it. The Challenger is intended for those who accept that, and merely want a nice daily driver or cruiser. I don't agree with this choice, but I understand where its strength lies.

Exactly. And realize with the Camaro and Mustang, as of now, they have no platform mates, so they have to sell to be pofitable. With the Challenger you also have the Charger, 300, and from whats been said, soon an Alfa model built on the same platform. THe upgrades the Challenger gets will rely on what happens with the other 2. Do you the Challenger would be getting the ,4 Hemi next year if it wasn't for the redesigned Charger and 300? I love the CHallenger, but it is a tag along with it's higher selling and more profitable platform mates as far as upgrades.

[Stew]

You have to remember too that the Camaro and Mustang has multiple generations that have grown up with those cars, there hasn't been a Challenger since 72 or 73?