The Challenger is beautiful (the Camaro is an abomination). But what Chrysler really needs isn’t another gorgeous muscle car; what they need is a competitive small car. Oil prices aren’t going anywhere but up, guys, and SUV sales have tanked. The Japanese automakers offer loads of small fuel-efficient cars. Detroit offers the Focus (nifty) and the Cobalt (meh).
You have to be kidding. First of all, the Fusion looks to be a great car, adn the design is perfect for what it intends to be - a slightly sportier, slightly more aggressive version of a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.
that’s precisely the problem. they’re trying to copy the work of the japanese auto companies. i can’t remember the last interesting auto that ford released that i liked to look at. i live in ford’s backyard, too. i get to see the suck come out before a lot of you others do.
on second thought, i DID like the lincoln ls. but that’s pretty much a jaguar with a lincoln body on.,…and it still had a myriad of mechanical problems.
and i don’t agree with this being a great era of design. it definitely has the potential to be, if the american part of the auto universe wisened up, but alas, anything interesting or compelling is being done overseas.
I don’t agree. When I look at the Accord, the Camry, the Altima, the various Lexuses and Infinitis, I don’t see great design (if by design we’re talking aesthetics and not mechanical). I love Subarus, but no one would call the Impreza, or the Forester, or the Outback, or even the Legacy paragons of good auto design. What else… The new Civic? The winshield slopes way too much, the dash is huge, and the two-level instrument display with a digital speedo sucks.
The Japanese have cornered the market on ‘bland design’.
If there’s anything the U.S. is doing right in comparison with Japan, it’s design. At least they are trying to be creative. The new Corvette is gorgeous, much better than the old C4. Ford has the Fusion (which you may not like but everyone else is raving about), the Mustang, the new Edge, and the Escape is still one of the best looking small SUVs. And of course Chrysler has gone for radical design in a big way with the 300 series, and they were first out of the gate with a retro vehicle with the PT cruiser. The Challenger concept is beautiful, and apparently will make it to production with almost no changes.
GM has lagged in design for years, creating boring cars like the Impala. But their new generation of cars are a different matter. The Solstice is one of the most beautiful roadsters I’ve seen. The Sky is right up there. The Vette is beautiful. The new Camaro will be beautiful if they fix the nose a bit. And they have more cars along these lines coming down the pike. I just saw an interview with the GM head Wagoner, and he says that all these car companies are just about equal now in initial quality and performance, and everyone knows that design is going to be what distinguishes manufacturers in the future. He’s absolutely right about that, but the fact that he admits it means that GM will be committing serious resources to it in the future.
you are right about that solstice. it does look like a fun little car, so i will grant you that much.
the newspapers here in detroit slup the detroit automakers, though, so i can’t point to my paper as a paragon for good auto criticism.
and of COURSE the GM guy would say the companies are equal. he says that because he knows they aren’t
our bickering seems to be a matter of taste. unless you want to keep bashing heads. even if GM is going to commit resources to design in the future, it’s going to be inferior design. it’ll be outsourced work which needs to get fixed and translated when it gets sent back. my dad was a contractor and did design work for internal components for years. when anything would come back from overseas, it’d have a billion things wrong with it. now, thinkgs COULD have changed, but i’m inclined to believe they haven’t.
maybe we should hijack this and pick best and worst design for each auto company. soud like a plan?
I Like the newest Mustang, and the Challenger concept looks sufficiently like the original from 1970 to appeal to me as well. Not so much attraction for the Camaro concept though, GM should have based it on the best looking Camaro of all (IMO) the 1970 Camaro RS.
I’d never own any of these, as I’m not really into velocity, but it is refreshing to see V8s being offered with manual transmissions again ( Mustang and Challenger at any rate - not sure if such will be available on the Camaro, but if GM wants to compete, they’ll have to offer a similar set-up).
Speaking of the Solstice, I met a guy the other day who traded his BMW Z3 for one. Seemed quite happy with the trade (of course the temp tag was still on the Solstice so he hadn’t had it long enough for the newness to wear off).
The Maybach is too much car for Chrysler.
Hell, its too much car for Rolls Royce!
The way I figer it, since the Crossfire
http://www.chrysler.com/crossfire/
is just a rebodied previous generation Mercedes SLK
http://www.maxoe.com/slk/
I say we take a large Benz like the S-Class
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/mercedesbenz_sclass_s500sedan_2005/15562/style_overview.html;_ylt=AmLVexFtYS92HxE4hfiBa7GCeL8F
and put a large Mopar body on that.
I love it!
I’ve often wondered why detroit didn’t go back to the popular designs of the 60’s 70’s muscle cars.
I think owning a 65 mustang with 2006 technology would be a great looking car with all the bells and whistles I’d need. And they’d sell like crazy. The new mustang was a step in the right direction, but why don’t they just build a new car with the same outside appearance?
This car looks a lot like the Challenger of old. Any idea on price range?
I know it’s the wrong car, but i’d love to see the Challenger in Hemi Orange with a huge “01” on the doors (horn that plays the first few bars of Dixie optional…)
this car looks better than the New Charger, if i had the disposable income, i’d get one when it becomes available…
still, it seems a little illogical for Detroit to release a muscle car what with gas prices being what they are…
that said, it’s a nice looking car, i think Dalmer/Chrysler has hit one out of the park here
I like it a lot.
I’ve owned Chargers ('71s, '73s, and now a '66) in the past and had hoped the new Charger would be closer to the original. I’m not pleased with the new Charger.
The new Challenger, however, brings back the old retro look and feel with modern updates. I missed, though, whether it would be rear or front wheel drive.
I’ve already written to them asking for a production model so I can buy one.
A more efficient link to the cars at the Detroit Auto Show.
http://media.freep.com/autoshow/index2006.htm
I like the Challenger. I also like the Reflex, and the Aston Martin.
Are you kidding?
Rear wheel. Hopefully solid axle, but I doubt it. I’d like to be able to roll away from a stop sign with both wheel wells filled with the white stuff.
As long as it is half the cost of a Corvette, you can count me in.
While I appreciate styling, including swoopy-zoomy as well as retro, it’s all about what happens when I get into the beast.
If they price it such that only folk such as me (middle-aged, successful career, etc.) can afford it, then it’s a miss. The GTOs and 442s did NOT get as popular as they were because only 40-year-olds could afford them. The provided a lot of go for a reasonable amount dough.
If the thing is priced reasonably, it could be a winner. Remember the RoadRunner and the SuperBee? Not the absolute fastest, but they were affordable in base trim and would really go fast.
Of course, then we have to deal with the “if” of whether this comes to fruition at all.
exactly why our car companies can’t compete. they’re trying to build bigger cars with bigger engines and ignoring fuel economy. then, you’ve got ford trying the hybrid angle, which may or may not work.
they’re reactionary, not proactionary (is that a word?). they should have wisened up years ago and had the economical cars. they’ll always follow instead of lead. i hope to god they get smart before they put themselves out of business.