Spy shot's of the 2011 Charger!!!

[jrc1122]

looks good.... things change big deal.... 2 door , 4 door.. who cares. It is just a car.. Take away the name, and rename it

4 Door Dodge.. and it would probably be okay with most of the critics,, some people need to get over the 60s and 70s.. they are over.. so are the 80s, 90s, 00's and moving into 2010s.. Seriously who cares about the "name".

Lord forbid a car have 4 doors. LOL... some people crack me up....

[mjf6866]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

So here you have the Challenger -- a car many on this board say can't even hope to be competitive unless you buy the ridiculously priced top trim level. And then you have the Charger, which is fatter, heavier and slower than a Challenger.

In terms of what people have come to expect from cars like this....what do you call 4th place? I call it garbage.

so here we have a member that is regurgitating what seems to be the trend around the interwebs..."the challenger is a big fat slow turd that cant perform blah blah blah..."

how many slips and videos need to be posted before people stop the negativity?

look stuntman, i ain't trying to pick on you, but if you get to tracks or look around on some other challenger related threads (particularily about the R/T)you might change your opinion. in the turns, yes, i agree that the R/T is lacking, but straight line performance, its proving to be able to hold its own pretty good.

and by the way...deathproof is one of the greatest movies to come out in the last 20 years. just a shame the ruin some precious classic sheetmetal!

[fielderLS3]

Looks a lot like the......2010 Charger. I was under the impression that the 2011 Charger would be a new design. That is just a facelift.

It's sad to think that Chrysler used to be an automotive design leader. Now, Chrysler seems content to continue its recent strategy of why pay to develop something new when you can repackage the old. This does not inspire optimism for the future of the company.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Looks a lot like the......2010 Charger. I was under the impression that the 2011 Charger would be a new design. That is just a facelift.

It's sad to think that Chrysler used to be an automotive design leader. Now, Chrysler seems content to continue its recent strategy of why pay to develop something new when you can repackage the old. This does not inspire optimism for the future of the company.

Not sure where you got that idea. The only reports that I've seen are that it was going to be a reskin/refresh not a clean sheet redesign. That said, this appears to be a pretty substantial refresh since all the exterior sheet metal is being reworked, along with the front fascia (presumably rear as well), some new/reworked engines, and probably a new interior as well. Thats almost as far as you can go without re-engineering the entire platform.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

Here's a thought -- Instead of editing my statements, why not make some of your own? Because what you're currently doing makes you look petty and immature.

Here's a fact for you, (since you seem so intent on pointing out that people's statements are opinons -- no kidding, seriously?)

The Charger is heavier than the Challenger -- a car pretty much everyone on this board recognizes as the fattest, heaviest, slowest of the three returning muscle cars. Not only is the Charger heavier than the Challenger, but all but the top trim has less power and torque than the Challenger.

So here you have the Challenger -- a car many on this board say can't even hope to be competitive unless you buy the ridiculously priced top trim level. And then you have the Charger, which is fatter, heavier and slower than a Challenger.

In terms of what people have come to expect from cars like this....what do you call 4th place? I call it garbage.

the immaturity level of this response is out of hand. I wont go into it, except go do some research and you will see these so called fattest blah blah (insert childish comment here) are in reality a drivers race. So please dont take it personal, I am just correcting misleading info.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Not sure where you got that idea. The only reports that I've seen are that it was going to be a reskin/refresh not a clean sheet redesign. That said, this appears to be a pretty substantial refresh since all the exterior sheet metal is being reworked, along with the front fascia (presumably rear as well), some new/reworked engines, and probably a new interior as well. Thats almost as far as you can go without re-engineering the entire platform.

exactly and the 300 looks substantially different as well, and the new jeep looks better. overall they are putting the effort and it seems good so far. people forget the charger hasnt been changed this much since it came out way back.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by wbt

When I decide to purchase a car I buy it. If I decide to mod it then I don't have to worry about lease issues. If I want to drive it over 12K a year then I will and not have to worry about it at the end of a lease.

I had a choice when I bought the Camaro and GT500. I bought American. I drove several BMW's. Not impressed.

Rest assured I will be keeping the Camaro and GT500 well beyond 4 years.

Again my point is Fiat/Chrysler/Dodge products do not hold their value as well as GM or Ford.

Back OT anyone?

good you stick american, I like you even more now

[StuntmanMike]

Originally Posted by mjf6866

so here we have a member that is regurgitating what seems to be the trend around the interwebs..."the challenger is a big fat slow turd that cant perform blah blah blah..."

how many slips and videos need to be posted before people stop the negativity?

I'm not just being negative. Yes, we've all seen the vids. And I think the Challenger is bad@$$, but the fact is that when stock vs stock is compared at the track, the new Camaro and the new Mustang will leave the Challenger behind every time.

The Charger is simply 4th place. Yes it can be modded, but so can the other three. Stock vs stock puts the Charger in 4th place (and only in SRT-8 mode...anything less is laughable).

And yes, Deathproof was awesome except for the car destruction...but that's also what I didn't like about the new Dukes of Hazzard movie.

[StuntmanMike]

Originally Posted by kevin2323

the immaturity level of this response is out of hand.

A post calling another post immature is not, in itself, immature. However the petty "editing" is immature.

Originally Posted by kevin2323

I am just correcting misleading info.

No, you are going out of your way to point out the obvious (that being that a poster's comments are his opinion). I am not the King of Earth. I know there is no little gremlin guy printing my word into a bible as I speak it. Anything I say is my opinion, thus it doesn't need to be pointed out.

When the "big 3" muscle cars (pony cars, whatever) came out, they were about being fast, beastly cars that were all but impractical for a family man.

The Camaro and Mustang and Challenger continue that concept today. But for the Charger, it was dropped. When I picture a 400 HP beast of a car, I don't picture a car that a family of 4 can fit comfortably in.

Look at all the reviews of the Camaro, Mustang, Challenger. They almost all knock the back seats and then in the very next sentence they say "But that's not why you're buying a 400 HP muscle car, now is it?"

The new Charger looks like a sedan version of the Magnum. Neither of which scream 'beastly muscle car' to me. Hell, the Charger and the Magnum share the same front end for crying out loud. The Charger should be called the 4-door Magnum, not a Charger. The imagine instilled by the classic Charger is lost in its new namesake.

[wbt]

Back off topic. I really like the Challengers. I think it is the best car Dodge has atm. I would not buy one but it does not mean I cannot appreciate it. ViperTomcat has posted some very respectable times in his R/T.

Can Dodge, GM and Ford owners co-exist? You bet. Do we have to agree on which one is the best? Nope. How the subject is approached determines the outcome simply because of the passion we have for our cars.

[wbt]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

The Camaro and Mustang and Challenger continue that concept today. But for the Charger, it was dropped. When I picture a 400 HP beast of a car, I don't picture a car that a family of 4 can fit comfortably in.

Hmmmm....what about the G8GT or GXP? It is a 4 door beast from GM.

I disagree with your line of thought.

[kevin2323]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

A post calling another post immature is not, in itself, immature. However the petty "editing" is immature.



No, you are going out of your way to point out the obvious (that being that a poster's comments are his opinion). I am not the King of Earth. I know there is no little gremlin guy printing my word into a bible as I speak it. Anything I say is my opinion, thus it doesn't need to be pointed out.

When the "big 3" muscle cars (pony cars, whatever) came out, they were about being fast, beastly cars that were all but impractical for a family man.

The Camaro and Mustang and Challenger continue that concept today. But for the Charger, it was dropped. When I picture a 400 HP beast of a car, I don't picture a car that a family of 4 can fit comfortably in.

Look at all the reviews of the Camaro, Mustang, Challenger. They almost all knock the back seats and then in the very next sentence they say "But that's not why you're buying a 400 HP muscle car, now is it?"

The new Charger looks like a sedan version of the Magnum. Neither of which scream 'beastly muscle car' to me. Hell, the Charger and the Magnum share the same front end for crying out loud. The Charger should be called the 4-door Magnum, not a Charger. The imagine instilled by the classic Charger is lost in its new namesake.

I understand and respect your point but I disagree.

[StuntmanMike]

Originally Posted by wbt

Hmmmm....what about the G8GT or GXP? It is a 4 door beast from GM.

I forgot about that mistake. Thanks for reminding me.

Muscle alone does not equal beast in my eyes. The iconic muscle car has a specific look, and when they were all created there were little to no 'muscle cars' that had 4 doors.

Call me old-fashioned, but those other two doors are just wasted space.

To help make my point; try picturing a 4-door Ferrari....Viper....Aston Martin...Lamborghini..... see my point now?

A muscle car should be exactly how Martin Lawrence describes Will Smith's Porche in "Bad Boys" -- "Just a shiny d!ck with two chairs in it. I guess we da' balls, just draggin' the f**k along!"

[8cd03gro]

Originally Posted by StuntmanMike

I forgot about that mistake. Thanks for reminding me.

Muscle alone does not equal beast in my eyes. The iconic muscle car has a specific look, and when they were all created there were little to no 'muscle cars' that had 4 doors.

Call me old-fashioned, but those other two doors are just wasted space.

To help make my point; try picturing a 4-door Ferrari....Viper....Aston Martin...Lamborghini..... see my point now?

A muscle car should be exactly how Martin Lawrence describes Will Smith's Porche in "Bad Boys" -- "Just a shiny d!ck with two chairs in it. I guess we da' balls, just draggin' the f**k along!"

A muscle car has never been a two seater. Muscle has always been a 2+2 coupe with a big v8.