CD Article: 2007 Dodge Charger Daytona R/T

[Mitlov]

Chargers have 2 doors. Trust me I had a '72 with the 440 Magnum
I thought they (Dodge) where done embarrassing the name after
creating an early '80's OMNI based 4 cyl "Charger"/Tourismo
Nothing is sacred anymore! 

What's next? a 4 door 'Cuda??

 

Everybody does this from time to time.  It's not right, but it also wasn't right when Honda motorcycles brought back the Sabre...but as a V-twin cruiser instead of a V-4 musclebike. 

I see Chargers all over the place, though, so this historical faux pas doesn't seem to have hurt Dodge.

[Snowman]

Chargers have 2 doors. Trust me I had a '72 with the 440 Magnum
I thought they (Dodge) where done embarrassing the name after
creating an early '80's OMNI based 4 cyl "Charger"/Tourismo
Nothing is sacred anymore! 

What's next? a 4 door 'Cuda??

 

Embarrasssing  The new Charger R/T would kill the old 440 Six Pack by one second 0-60.

[Morteus]

OK....OK but let's compare Hemi to Hemi.

70 Hemi Charger ...0 to 60...5.3secs!

I think the new one comes in around 5.5 or 5.4secs.

So let's see.....37 years of technology...more than 7 times the price and it's slower. I wonder how fast the '70 Hemi Charger would be if I sank an extra $35K into the engine? It would blow the extra 2 doors off of the 300...er ..uhmm..."Charger".
 

[jcon]

OK....OK but let's compare Hemi to Hemi.

70 Hemi Charger ...0 to 60...5.3secs!

I think the new one comes in around 5.5 or 5.4secs.

So let's see.....37 years of technology...more than 7 times the price and it's slower. I wonder how fast the '70 Hemi Charger would be if I sank an extra $35K into the engine? It would blow the extra 2 doors off of the 300...er ..uhmm..."Charger".
 

7 times the price??? Adjusted for inflation, I would bet that number would be a little closer.

The new Charger is safer and more advanced. As a daily driver its far more fuel efficient and better on the environment. Considering how limited manufacturers are today in what they can do, I would say this Hemi is pretty amazing.

[Zombie]

OK....OK but let's compare Hemi to Hemi.

70 Hemi Charger ...0 to 60...5.3secs!

I think the new one comes in around 5.5 or 5.4secs.

So let's see.....37 years of technology...more than 7 times the price and it's slower. I wonder how fast the '70 Hemi Charger would be if I sank an extra $35K into the engine? It would blow the extra 2 doors off of the 300...er ..uhmm..."Charger".
 

The problem with your comparison is that the 70 Hemi charger came in a manual and the new one only comes in an auto. In most cases a manual car is always faster then its automatic brother by at least half a second maybe more.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The 1967 Charger base price was $3122. The Hemi option was $1000.

Adjusted for inflation, that would be $18740 base price and $24743 for the Hemi. But they weren't reliable at all, didn't handle and got about 10mpg. About the only thing they could do is drag race, when properly equipped.

And the SRT8 is good for a 0-60 ~5.0sec flat, and a 13.5 quarter mile.

[jcon]

Big_Thumb - What do you use to calculate inflation?

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Big_Thumb - What do you use to calculate inflation?

www.westegg.com/inflation/  US

www.bankofcanada.ca/en/inflation_calc.htm Canada

Here are a couple of calculators. The BoC one is pretty good. There are a ton of them out there.

[jww]

All good - but does it do corners?

[Mitlov]

All good - but does it do corners?

Yes.  Car and Driver described the 300C (mechanically very similar to a Charger R/T) as "goes like lubed lightning and turns like a dancing debutante," and clarified as follows:

There's more sophistication in the suspension. Cast aluminum links paired with aluminum brake calipers clip the mass right where Newton is his most mischievous. The setup actually supplies a real appetite for curves that the old front-drive 300M could only promise. The 4140-pound 300C is a big car cured of typical big-car ills. There's no squealing or squirming when the roads begin to snake. Slip angles—the difference between where the tires are pointed and where they're actually rolling—stay down in German four-door territory. Body pitching in the corners and under braking (a reliable 184 feet from 70 mph under a firm pedal) is minimal, the movements sharp and controlled. The hitch: Buyers trading in softies such as the Grand Marquis will notice their once-leaden ride has livened up. Expect more feedback, more road bump and tire thrum, from the 300C.

Forget its 0.77-g skidpad performance. The 300C's electronic-stability-control system interfered and cannot be fully disabled. Thumbing the dash button only quiets the traction control and slightly raises the computer's tolerance for sideways play. The stability control never allows real tail swinging even though the Hemi is happy to supply it.

http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/8009/2005-chrysler-300c-hemi-page2.html

[Morteus]

Yes it may have good performance numbers (for a grocery getter)
but my original point is that it is not a "Charger". There where many large family cars back in the day that had monster motors as well.

The Buick Wildcat with the 455ci engine comes to mind. Not to mention the original 300 which could be ordered with the 440 Magnum. It is more relevant to compare the new 300C/"Charger" to these cars as they are a closer configuration and had the same mission in life. To haul the family around and have some fun when you're alone.

The Charger was a no apologies, impractical ground pounder that was all about attitude and low on the practicality scale. (2 doors - small trunk - long hood)

I won't even get into the fact that the new 300C platform is derived from Mercedes Benz! (oops I did!). Hardly an all-American muscle car
like the true Charger! The only ones left are the Mustang and the new Challenger (when it reaches us)

[Mitlov]

The only ones left are the Mustang and the new Challenger (when it reaches us)

The Challenger is built off of the Charger platform, and uses that same Mercedes-sourced suspension you despise and reviewers generally love.

[Morteus]

The only ones left are the Mustang and the new Challenger (when it reaches us)

The Challenger is built off of the Charger platform, and uses that same Mercedes-sourced suspension you despise and reviewers generally love.

Despise?? show me where I said despise!   
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said it wasn't an American design as was the original Charger. My point, which you seem to be avoiding is that the new "Charger" was named so only as a marketing ploy. The original Charger was never intended to be a practical roomy 4 door family car....like the 300C. They did it to capitalize on the image of the old car that the aging baby boomers (who now have families) still hold with nostalgic high regard. The fact the the 300 has numerous good points (as a family car) is not what I am challenging. Since you keep disputing my point...why don't you answer the actual questions that are being asked here? Do you think the new "Charger" is truly a Charger? Secondly have you actually ever owned a real Charger?

[The Fuzz]

2 of 3 Chargers we have with the 3.5 have had to top end replaced with less than 60,000km on them. And one of them is making a nasty noise again. 

[Mitlov]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I said it wasn't an American design as was the original Charger. My point, which you seem to be avoiding is that the new "Charger" was named so only as a marketing ploy. The original Charger was never intended to be a practical roomy 4 door family car....like the 300C. They did it to capitalize on the image of the old car that the aging baby boomers (who now have families) still hold with nostalgic high regard.

Of course the name of the car is a marketing ploy.  That's the whole point of car names to begin with.  Marketing ploys to increase sales.  Why name a car a "Mustang" when you can call it a "Ex05FJB"?  Marketing.  That's all it is.

If you're asked if I'm offended by this marketing ploy, no I'm not.  Very often, cars and automobiles change radically from one generation to the next, while keeping the name.  The old "Beetle" was rear-engine, RWD; the new one is front-engined, front-wheel-drive.  The former was meant to be reliable transportation for working-class families; the latter is meant to be a fashion statement by singles and child-less couples.  Yet nobody s--- their pants when the new Beetle came out, which shared nothing but a couple styling lines with the old Beetle.

Since you keep disputing my point...why don't you answer the actual questions that are being asked here? Do you think the new "Charger" is truly a Charger?

Yeah, just like I think the New Beetle is really a Beetle, the new Honda Sabre is really a Sabre, and the rumored front-engined V10 NSX would be a "real" NSX.  They're different then their predecessors but that doesn't mean that they're "fake."

Secondly have you actually ever owned a real Charger?

I've never owned a Charger, old or new, as I'm not a muscle-car guy.  I don't see why that matters though.  And despite your snarky comment "why don't you answer the actual questions being asked," nobody asked this question up to this point.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I've driven a 1970 Charger with the 383 and stick. It was absolute crap in the handling department, even compared with it's contemporaries. It's only real claim to fame was good straight line speed with the 440 or 426 hemi. And It WAS supposed to be a family car that Dad could have fun with, but in the '50s to the '80s "sporty" meant two door. Since the '80s though sports sedans are considered to be every bit as legitimate as sports coupes.

The real "handling" cars that Mopar offered back in the day were the Dodge Challenger and Plymouth 'Cudas with the 340 engines (the big blocks were again straight liners only).

A friend of mine had a Satellite Sebring with the 440 sixpack and four speed. Dead fast in a straight line, but rode like a buckboard, destroyed front tires in corners, and couldn't brake to save it's (or nearly our) life(s).

I owned a '68 Wildcat(similar to this one) that worked much, much better than the Charger. It wasn't ,of course, as capable in a straight line, but rode well, could actually take corners (with a lot of concentration!) and had pretty damn good brakes.

I fear you are looking back with heavily rose tinted glasses. The current Charger is a much better car than the old ones ever were.

[mrthompson]

The current Charger is a much better car than the old ones ever were.

But can it jump a cop car/river/hay bales and keep going? 

[The Mighty Duck]

No.  But given the colour, finding the pieces will be easy.

[Morteus]

I fear you are looking back with heavily rose tinted glasses. The current Charger is a much better car than the old ones ever were.

Gents..Gents.. Gents..once again misinterpreting what I said (typed)
I didn't claim that it was a great car. I said it was fast, period. If you look back at my posts, you will not see anywhere that I said the old Charger was a "better" car only that it was significantly different with a different mission in life.

So far Miltov has claimed that I "despised" the new car (suspension)..and went on to argue why I was wrong..I never said that.

Now Big Thumb is saying that I claimed that the old Charger was a better car......didn't say that either.  Read the original posts gentlemen before replying. My point is the old Charger was the Charger. To put the name on a family car is silly. The new car could change your sheets...brown the meat..go 0 to 60 in under 2 seconds and hang on the wall standing still. That would make it a great car....but not a Charger. The experience of owning a Charger is lost in time for most and enjoyed currently by the few..warts and all. Having owned one I am keenly aware of it's shortcomings. Especially back in the day when they came equipped with bias ply tires! If they made a car identical in handling and braking as the old Charger it would be ridiculed compared to current standards. No 60's early '70's car handled/braked as well as the current models so the point is moot to compare them. However If I grew my hair long wore round rimmed glasses, wrote music and called myself John Lennon...would I be? If they renamed the new 500/Taurus a Mustang...would it be a true Mustang? If you really wanted to own a Charger...get out the used car section and rebuild one. Otherwise resign yourself to the fact that you are going to buy a misnomered slightly smaller 300C with most of the benefits and draw backs of that car...and may the Mopar gods forgive you!
Just don't ever go to a car show and brag that you drive a Charger..unless you enjoy being laughed at!